Ketanji Brown Jackson

 

Let’s start our analysis of Ketanji Brown Jackson with a bit of a reality check.  This woman is going to get confirmed by the Senate.  She certainly has all 50 Democrat votes in the Senate, which is all she needs since Kamala will place the deciding 51^st vote for her confirmation if that is necessary.  I will predict, however that she will also get as many as five Republican votes.  This, however, might be a good sign that the Senate is returning to the “Advise and Consent” role they are intended to perform in confirming Supreme Court Justices rather than the “Search and Destroy” approach Democrats have taken recently.  Just reflect back on the hearing for Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The other reality about this nomination is that it will not change the balance of the Supreme Court.  Ketanji Brown Jackson will be replacing Justice Breyer, for whom she clerked.  Justice Breyer was a Clinton nomination, and while he is considered more moderate than Sotomayor or Kagen, he was a dependable liberal vote, especially on the key issues that have faced the court.  The court will still maintain its 6-3 split with six justices nominated by Republican Presidents, and amazingly three of those six appointed by Donald Trump.

I didn’t watch every minute of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Judiciary hearings, but I watched enough to get a feel for not only how I felt about her, but also how I expect the total Senate to vote.  Her opening statement hit on a few chords that I actually liked.  She thanked God for the opportunities she was given during her life.  She also expressed a true love for this country and emphasized how much this country has progressed since her parents’ lifetimes, a concept that I have advocated for years.

She continually refused to describe her judicial philosophy, to which some Senators took exception.  She did, however, take great care to describe her “judicial methodology” which I found even more helpful and sounded, at times, suspiciously like a philosophy.  At these times she talked about how she always intended to pay scrupulous attention to the law and the Constitution and she was constantly trying to “stay in her lane”.  In fact, I thought her methodology sounded very much like what I would have expected from one of my favorite, originalist Justices, the late, great Antonin Scalia.

She also praised her parents (and herself indirectly) for taking full advantage of reformation that has occurred since the 50’s here in America.  She stated that they were able to reverse the effects of racism in just one generation.  This is an idea that I hold along with W.E.B. DuBois which he expressed in his book, “The Souls of Black Folk”.  DuBois proposed that, given the positive changes in access to opportunity in this country, each new generation offers black families the chance to totally reverse the effects discrimination in just one generation.  A young black man or woman born today might even be able to become a Supreme Court Justice, or even President.  I agree.

Ms. Brown Jackson had a few contentious exchanges with a few of the Republican Senators, but believe me, nothing like what Brett Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett faced.  She wouldn’t even try to define what a “woman” is, even though this could come before her and the court as transgender men / women (whatever) in sports becomes more and more common.  Actually, that answer would probably have been a better one.  She was pressed on her light sentencing of child porn cases, but I found her answers on that issue to be at least understandable.  She is not the only judge who has given sentences below the guidelines and she did consistently call those crimes “heinous”.  Actually, when Lindsey Graham grilled her in this area, I found myself feeling sympathy for her.  Neither of these lines of questioning, however, provided an excuse for disqualification for me.

For me, the most concerning line of questioning came again from Lindsey Graham concerning the case of “Make the Road, New York v McAleenan”.  This was a case where the Department of Homeland Security expanded the eligibility for expedited removal of illegal immigrants to those who had been in the country for up to two years.  It had previously only been applied to those in the country for 14 days.  This was a Trump era decision by DHS.  The statute clearly stated that DHS had “sole and unreviewable discretion” to that determination.  She struck that decision down and was reversed unanimously by a three-judge panel of the DC Court of Appeals.  The DC Circuit Court could not have been stronger in its disagreement of her decision when it said, “there could hardly be a more definitive expression of Congressional intent to leave the decision…to the Secretary’s (of DHS) independent judgement”.  Senator Graham was suggesting that this was an example of judge Brown Jackson legislating from the bench.  And he was probably right, but she covered herself in this area by her “judicial methodology”.  

As I stated earlier, she will be confirmed and I hope her treatment will become more of a model for future hearings vs. the Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett hearing, which were disgusting, especially Kavanaugh’s.  Her confirmation will make the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice an issue in the 2028 Presidential election or even possibly in 2024.  After Breyer retires, the next two oldest judges are Clarence Thomas (age 73) and Samuel Alito (age 71).  For your convenience, below is a recap of the age and the President who nominated our current Supreme Court Justices.

 

Justice	Born	Nominated By	In	Leans	Age
Stephen Breyer	1938	Bill Clinton	1994	Liberal	83
Clarence Thomas	1948	George H.W. Bush	1991	Conservative	73
Samuel Alito	1950	George W. Bush	2006	Conservative	71
Sonia Sotomayer	1954	Barack Obama	2009	Liberal	67
John Roberts	1955	George W. Bush	2005	Swing	66
Elena Kagan	1960	Barack Obama	2010	Liberal	61
Brett Kavanaugh	1965	Donald Trump	2018	Conservative	56
Neil Gorsuch	1967	Donald Trump	2017	Swing	54
Amy Barrett	1972	Donald Trump	2020	Conservative	49

The Steven Colbert School of Logic

 

Recently, late night talk show host and certified out-of-touch elitist, Steven Colbert, announced on air that he didn’t mind paying a higher price for gas here in the United States because it somehow soothed his conscience.  He went on to say that he wouldn’t mind if gas prices went up to $15 a gallon because he drove a $200,000 Tesla, and why doesn’t everyone?  Since Colbert made that statement, I’ve actually heard some of my friends echo that sentiment suggesting that we should all stop “bitching” about high gas prices here because people are being killed in Ukraine.  Most of the people using this line of reasoning and pretty well off (Colbert has a net worth of $75 million) so high gas prices really don’t affect them.  Many Americans of more modest means, however, will have to make some tough choices as they watch their gas and heating oil costs double in just a year’s time.  They will be choosing between gas and food or insurance or doctor visits.  They will not be out pricing Teslas as a solution to their problem.

While I and most Americans are appalled with the senseless slaughter of civilian Ukrainian life by the madman who is running Russia, we all need to take a step back and consider what things we can do here that will actually make a difference over there.  I can guarantee you, however, that paying a higher price for gasoline in The United States will NOT save a single life in Ukraine.  If fact, higher global oil prices will only intensify or prolong the assault on Ukraine because it is oil revenues that are financing Putin’s war. 

So, someone please tell Steven Colbert’s conscience that it is not off the hook, and in fact has some damage control to do.  If Steven Colbert and anyone here in the United States wants to help the people of Ukraine, the first thing you can do is send money to one of the hundreds of organizations, including the Ukrainian Red Cross, who are actively supporting Ukrainian women and children who are trying to flee that country.  I would hope that Mr. Colbert is using some of his $15 million annual salary and $75 million net worth to support some of those groups.  And I hope it’s not with a $100 check, lest his conscience should not be soothed.

The other thing you and I can do is to write our Congress people and ask them to stop the war on the oil and gas industry here in the United States.  We should also vote for candidates who align with that position.  The war here in the US has not only NOT prevented the assault on Ukraine, but it has undoubtedly contributed to it.  Stifling our gas and oil companies will also not develop renewable energy here in America or around the world any faster.  Again, it may even delay it.  What we need is an “all of the above” energy strategy.  

I do believe in developing renewable energy.  It was Thomas Edison who said, “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy.”  That’s probably because Edison knew that the sun puts down more energy on this planet in an hour than we on earth consume in a year.  The power of the sun is amazing and I’m confident that it is the long-term solution to our energy needs, but that solution is not ready now.  Today, solar power only supplies about 1% of our energy needs here in the US, and that’s because we simply have not figured out how to capture and store that energy efficiently.  I’m confident that we will eventually figure out how to harness the energy of the sun, but considering where we are now, that time will not come for decades and it may even take 50 to 100 years.

But destroying our existing energy industry now, will not develop that capability any faster.  The Biden administration is strangling oil and gas production here through regulations and restrictions which is driving up those prices here and around the world, and those higher prices don’t help anyone.  He should be encouraging the development of all energy sources and allow the free market to transition to renewable energy sources through research and investment as that capability becomes efficient and affordable.  

The first gas powered car was invented in 1881, but then President Chester A. Arthur did not sign an executive order to kill all the horses in the country so that we could develop the car industry faster.  In fact, if President Arthur had made such an idiotic move, it would have caused extreme pain for the entire United States and actually delayed the progress of the auto industry. But that is exactly what we are doing today as this administration punishes the oil and gas industries in the US and suggesting that it can be replaced by wind and solar, etc.  That is ridiculous and delusional.

The point is, we cannot let our unscrupulous politicians sell us absurd concepts just by appealing to our compassionate natures, or unwarranted fear (paranoia).  High gas prices in the United States and the world with not save a single life in Ukraine.  In fact, high energy prices will probably make things better for Putin and worse for Ukraine.  Likewise, punishing and restricting our oil and gas industry in the US will not develop renewable energy any faster.  In fact, it will probably delay it.  What we need is an “all of the above” energy strategy now, and probably forever.  Drill and pump today, taking advantage of our massive resources while we research and develop alternative sources of energy so that we can transition to them when they become feasible in the future. 

A Few Thoughts on Ukraine

 

First, this is not the time for criticism of Joe Biden or his administration and arguing over decisions made in the past that people might believe have led to the predicament we find ourselves in today.  There will be plenty of time for a critical analysis when this particular crisis is over.  We should all be praying for Joe Biden and hoping that he makes good decisions for The United States and the world today.  Previous Presidents should take a hint from the George W. Bush and Barack Obama who have been completely silent far.  They understand how difficult that job is and I’m sure that they would privately offer advice if it was solicited, but silence for now is the best policy for them.

Given that, however, there are a few pieces of advice that I would offer President Biden if I were asked.  First, I think we should quickly shift to an all-of-the-above energy strategy.  This would include approving the completion of the Keystone Pipeline and opening up federal lands for more oil drilling and exploration.  This would not have an immediate impact on the supply of oil here, but it might actually have an immediate impact on the price of oil around the world.  It would certainly lower the global price of oil in the future, which would punish Russia whose primary source of income comes from oil and natural gas.  Right now, as the price of oil hovers at around $100 a barrel, it rewards and strengthens Russia’s ability to finance aggression against Ukraine or other countries he fancies should be part of a new Soviet Union.

This is similar to what is happening on our southern border.  Our current open border policy is enriching the cartels, some very bad people.  So, while strengthening our southern border would not affect Ukraine, it would apply the same principle to both situations.  Make sure US policies don’t reward bad people, particularly our geopolitical foes.

Another message needs to be sent to Russia, and that is that the world cannot continue to just watch what is going on in Ukraine.  This is an unprovoked attack on Ukraine’s sovereignty, and if we allow this today, where does it stop?  How long will Taiwan be safe?  Israel?  Lithuania?  Latvia?  Estonia?  South Korea?  This would take a masterful effort to unite the key players in the world, but it would be worth the effort to insure a more peaceful future.  It could start with the NATO countries to come to the defense of Ukraine as if it were a member.  

This would take real leadership, but as the long-accepted maxim suggests, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”  Right now, the world is watching evil triumph.  When will we all conclude that “We” are the good men that this adage is referencing.

OH CAN-A-DA

 

I have been watching the Canadian Convoy Protest for almost a week now and decided that I had to convey my observations to my readers.  First, this protest is serious.  While there have been wild exaggerations about the size of the crowds, there has been very little written about any accurate estimates of crowd sizes.  Let me clear up some of the confusion.  There are thousands of vehicles and tens of thousands of people involved, non-stop for over a week now.  These people are paying a price, literally and figuratively.  They believe in their cause, and that cause is freedom of choice.

These men and women are also not confused about what they are fighting for – Liberty.  They are articulate and consistent with their message and they are incredibly peaceful.  I haven’t seen one Canadian small business or automobile on fire, in fact the only fires I have seen have been in grills or in campfires to keep people warm.  They actually have “bouncy houses” for kids to play in, something I can’t say was found in any of the 574 riots in “the summer of love” in 2020.  While the riots of 2020 were described as “mostly peaceful”, these protests could and should be described as completely peaceful.

Maybe the biggest question is, are the truckers’ demands reasonable?  At a time when eight entire countries including the UK, France and Italy are canceling restrictions and returning their citizenry to normalcy, Justin Trudeau is punishing and demonizing Canadians, his own people, for even suggesting a similar position in their own country.  Trudeau, Canada’s Prime Minister, is judging the protestors beliefs as “unacceptable”.  Is this even consistent with Canada’s Bill of Rights?  Does Canada even have a Bill of Rights?  The answer is – Yes and no.

In 1960, Canada established a Canadian Bill of Rights, which was proven to be ineffective because it applied only to federal statutes and not to the Provinces.  It was replaced by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 which is still in effect today.  Interestingly, section 2 of that charter states that all Canadians have “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression”.  That section also guarantees Canadians’ “freedom to peacefully assemble”.  It seems that Trudeau’s statement in front of their Parliament violates these truckers’ freedom of thought, belief and opinion, and his hostile handling of the protestors violates their right to peacefully assemble.  It all depends on how you define “peaceful”.  These protests are clearly not violent, but they are making inter-province and international commerce inconvenient.

Trudeau also seems to be misreading the growing support for the truckers.  The latest polls show that 46% (almost half) of Canadians support the protestors.  Is Trudeau suggesting that nearly half of his constituents, about 18 million people, have “unacceptable” thoughts, beliefs or opinions?  And this support is growing.

Finally, is this the right time to take this stand or group of people to attack.? At a time when infections are plunging in Canada and the US and entire countries and states here in America are eliminating vaccine passports, is now the time to be so stubborn?  Eighty per cent of Canadians are fully vaccinated, one of highest rates in the world and well above the 64% level here in the US.  And according to Johns Hopkins, 90% of the Canadian truckers are fully vaccinated.  Are these the people Trudeau should be demonizing?  Clearly these people are not anti-vaccination.  They are simply anti-mandate.  Plus, truckers practically define the concept of self-isolation.  They are in their trucks by themselves for most of their working days.  Do we really need to take away their livelihoods and destroy their lives when they pose virtually zero risk to anyone else in Canada or the US?  These truckers were our heroes just a year ago when they kept our stores supplied when the vaccines were not available.  They have not turned into racist, Nazi demons since then.

The only question anyone might have about this strike is if it is causing too much financial damage to Canada and the US.  Clearly it is not violent.  Is it too inconvenient?  That’s a good question.  But in addition to that question I would add a couple more.  Given Justin Trudeau’s disdain for the truckers’ opinion and plight, what is the likelihood that he would even listen to them without the financial pressure?  Also, do you support the right of unions to strike here in America which always includes the shutdown of plants and facilities with the intent of causing financial discomfort?  It is this discomfort that our unions and these truckers depend on to force negotiations.

Given an impartial analysis of this situation, I support the truckers and see Justin Trudeau as a stubborn, out of touch elitist who will only yield when his personal legacy is in jeopardy.  Come on, Justin.  Just talk to the truckers before you try to destroy all of their lives.

Biden Becomes Republican's Critic & Counselor

 

During his first press conference of 2022, Joe Bidden turned into a chief counsel for the Republican Party.  He started by accusing Republicans of not standing for anything and just being against everything, the party of “NO”.  It is an easy claim to make in front of a friendly media corps, especially when he would get no push back because he didn’t take any questions.  If he had been in a debate, he would have been crushed by his Republican opponent who would have delivered a long list of tantalizingly good policies they plan to pursue.  Joe also, unwittingly, revealed the Democrat plan to try to hold on to the House and Senate in the 2022 midterms.  They plan to paint the Republican Party as the party of no.  This gives plenty of time to prepare their campaign.  It’s the equivalent of giving Tom Brady two minutes and three timeouts in the fourth quarter to deliver a field goal to win the game.

There are actually a number of bills Republicans (conservatives) should not only talk about, but promise to pass and put on Joe’s desk in 2023.  Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract with America included 10 pieces of legislation that he would bring up if and when Republicans were at the helm.  He used the contract to position his party as the party that was fiscally responsible, pro-police and anti-criminal, and for welfare reform and lower taxes.  Newt’s Contract with America gained 54 seats in the House and 10 seats in the Senate and flipped both the House and the Senate from Democrat to Republican majorities which they maintained for the next 12 years. Interestingly, some of those issues are still important even today, but there are, in my opinion at least four areas that conservatives should focus on for 2022, and do so publicly and nationally.

Amazingly, I believe one of the biggest issues in this next election will be border security.  While President Trump made this a big issue in 2016 and did deliver much of his wall, it is clear that there is more to be done.  I believe the wall needs to be completed in strategic areas but given the record two million apprehensions and an estimated 600,000 got-aways this year it shows that the wall is not enough.  We need more technology and boots on the ground, but we must also eliminate “catch and release” and other incentives to cross illegally.  This is still a huge issue with Americans and even 50% of Hispanic Americans favor a secure border.

Any discussion on border security, however, should include a promise to address the millions of people still living here illegally.  According to Pew Research, 74% of Americans favor giving legal status for children brought here by their parents without their knowledge or consent (the DACA persons).  I believe we should offer them a path to citizenship, but whatever border security legislation becomes part of this new contract it needs to address hard working Hispanic Americans that are still living in the shadows in America.

Another plank for this new contract needs to be a pro-police, anti-crime piece of legislation.  While much of law enforcement is controlled at the state and local levels, there is still much that the federal government can to do help.  Interestingly enough, this was also a part of the Newt’s contract with America back in 1994.  The original contract promised more federal money that could ONLY be used to put more police on the streets and required harsher penalties for violent crimes.  The same could and should be promised today.

Next, the contract needs to be a pro-parent document.  Between local school boards and the Biden administration, parents today are under attack.  Two things finally put a spotlight on this issue.  First, the pandemic forced children into remote learning and parents finally saw for themselves what was being taught in schools and were shocked.  Then, Glenn Youngkin made parents’ rights a key topic of discussion in the Virginia Governor’s race.  He sided with parents vs the teachers’ unions and he won.  Then, Merrick Garland, Biden’s Attorney General, created a special task force to investigate parents who attended school board meetings at the behest of the NSBA (National School Boards Association).  This drew the line of demarcation in this battle.  The Democrat party was siding with the campaign money provided by teachers’ unions, and Republicans have chosen parents.  While money will always be important for politicians, there are WAY more parents in this country than teachers and I believe Republicans will be on the right side of history here.

Finally, Republicans should grasp the mantle of fiscal responsibly and promise to balance the budget and stop piling mountains of debt on to the backs of our children.  They are the ones who will have to pick up the tab for today’s mindless spending.  And I disagree with Nancy Pelosi who famously said that, “we don’t have a spending problem” in America.  She suggested that our government can tax its way out of our fiscal problems.  To cure our deficit spending disease, we will have to make some tough spending reduction decisions on discretionary spending like Defense and the size of government and even mandatory spending like Social Security and Medicare.  These cuts, however, are not just good ideas, they are unavoidable.

There could be other planks to this new Contract with America, but the important thing is that the Republican Party needs to become the party of promise, hope and action and not just the party of “no”.

Our Hyperbolic, Divider in Chief

             It will probably not shock my reading audience to hear that I did not vote for Joe Biden, but it may surprise some as to why.  You would think that I made my decision based on policies, but that would not be true.  I knew very little about Joe Biden’s proposed policies because he spent most of the Presidential campaign in his basement masked even when isolated.  The few positions I did know about (rejoining the Paris Accord and re-engaging with Iran) I didn’t like.  But to be honest, I didn’t vote for Joe because of his advanced age.  

            Joe is 78 and will be 82 by the end of his first term.  The few times I did see Joe, I was convinced that he had lost his fastball and was just not capable of handling the challenges of the toughest job in the world.  When he eventually won, the one ray of hope that I had was that Joe promised to work across the aisle and unite America in the process.  It didn’t take him long, however, to break those promises and dash the little hope I had that he could unify the country.

The 2020 election left us with the most evenly split Congress in our nation’s history.  We now have a 50-50 split in the Senate and a 51% to 49% division in the House where Republicans actually picked up 13 seats in 2020 despite the fact that Joe Biden won the Presidency.  That almost never happens.  If the 2020 election was a mandate for anything it was a mandate for cooperation, consensus, and working across the ideological aisle. Yet, in his first month in office President Biden set a record for executive orders which didn’t even require working with his own party, let alone Republicans.  This is the action of a king, not a President who promised to work with representatives of both parties.  Then he and his party in the House and Senate excluded Republicans from the planning processes for his big pieces of legislation.  This early partisanship further shattered my hopes that Joe would deliver on his promise of unity.

Since then Joe has managed to divide the country in more ways than I thought was even possible.  He has blamed the unvaccinated for Covid-19 results and has, for all intents and purposes, let the Chinese Communist Party off the hook.  This has turned the vaxed against the unvaxed even though many of his own voters in the Black community are the most hesitant.  He has pitted Blacks against Whites and vice versa by ignoring the violence and destruction of BLM and Antifa during the “summer of love” and then obsessing over white supremacy which is virtually nonexistent in this great country.

He has turned the rich against the poor or should I say the poor against the rich?  I guess it’s best for Joe if we all hate each other.   He certainly leaned towards the rich, however, since he took tons of money from them to win the Presidency.  But, they need not worry.  Even if Joe increases tax rates on the wealthy, Congress will build in plenty of loopholes for them to wiggle through.  And certainly, Joe has turned Democrats and Republicans against each other.

His recent hyperbolic speech attempting to sell his Freedom to Vote Act was a character assassination of the vast majority Americans.  There are legitimate and thoughtful reasons to oppose this bill.  First of all, it violates the 10^thamendment to the constitution which limits the power of the Federal Government to those inumerated in the Constitution, and establishing voting rules for every state is not enumerated.  The 10^th amendment puts the power to establish those rules in the hands of the states.  Despite that fact, Joe compared people who oppose this bill to George Wallace, Bull Connor and Jefferson Davis (all Democrats BTW).  I don’t know the hearts of any of these men, but most people would connect their names with segregation and slavery.  So, Joe is suggesting that anyone who wants voter ID is a racist.  Now, I’m sure he intended this insult to land on Republicans, but voter ID is supported by 81% of all Americans, 77% of Black America, 78% of Hispanics and even 65% of Democrats.  81% of America is racist?  Really?  

But Joe still wasn’t finished with his campaign to divide America.  He headed back to Washington to kill the last vestiges of civility and collaboration left in the Senate and maybe all of Congress.  Yesterday, he attempted to convince Democrats in the Senate to eliminate the filibuster.  First, let me explain what the Filibuster is.  It is a rule in the Senate that requires 60 votes in the Senate (a supermajority) to end debate on a bill so that it can come to a vote.  This concept has been in the Senate since its establishment so as to make the Senate a cooling off chamber and a more deliberative body than the fiery and passionate House of Representatives.  It has also been in the actual rules of the Senate for almost 200 years and the super-majority cloture vote has been in the rules for over 100 years. The Founders favored this process to avoid what they called “the tyranny of the majority”.  The filibuster was intended to protect the minority party from total impotence and force our two parties to work together to create solutions that would work for the country as a whole.  Eliminating the filibuster would leave half of the country today voiceless.

My advice to President Biden would be to make good on the promises he made during the campaign.  Be the President of all Americans.  Realize that many patriotic Americans may legitimately have different opinions than you, Joe, but you represent them all.  Understand the good in all of them.  For all Americans, I suggest that we reject the cancel culture which demands “thought compliance” and delivers hatred and character assassination without it.  Most Americans are good, generous and patriotic people.  As soon as Joe Biden and the rest of us realize this, we will come together as a nation.

Is Testing a Good Strategy

                                                               The View from the Middle 

If your goal is to keep America in panic mode, then a massive testing effort is a great idea.  If you increase testing by 1,000%, do you know what you are going to get?  You are going to get more positive test results, and according to the CDC about 20% of those results are going to be false positives.  This increase in cases will be captured by the news media and dominate front pages and lead stories on TV because fear sells papers, ratings and clicks around the world.  

What you won’t hear much about on the news is that there has only been one death in the US due to the Omicron variant, and that person died “with” Covid, not “from” Covid.  You will also not hear that hospitalizations are not increasing nearly as much as infections and the main reason for increased hospitalizations is that people are finally getting some of those elective surgeries that they have been postponing for over a year.  This variant is less lethal than the original virus or the Delta variant and, if it follows the same steep increase and almost immediate steep decline seen in other countries, it may be ushering in the end of this pandemic.

It also makes me laugh to watch the coverage of incredibly long lines of people waiting to get a test standing outdoors in the freezing cold and sometimes in the pouring rain, reading books or their phones.  Obviously, these people aren’t experiencing any symptoms, or they would (and should) be at home in bed.  Given these “lack of symptoms” testers, we are getting many asymptomatic infected or false positives.  Now, is it important to find these asymptomatic carriers?  Yes and no.  First, these people are not showing symptoms, so they aren’t out there sneezing and coughing on people.  Can they spread this much milder version of Covid to others.  It is possible, but not likely.  In fact, I can find no data on what percent of transmissions are caused by the asymptomatic.

And how often should we test when a person can be exposed to Covid within minutes of testing negative?  Should we test multiple times a day?  Three times?  Four times?  To test three times a day we would need a BILLION tests per day just here in the US, yet we have only ordered half a billion to be delivered in mid-January.  Can you understand how ludicrous a massive testing effort like this will be?  Finally, if we get the same quick peak and decline experienced by other countries, the tests that Biden is planning to deliver in mid-January will most likely be too late anyway.  

Imagine if we had mandatory tests for the common cold, which is also a coronavirus, every year and then mandated five-day quarantines for everyone who tested positive and everyone who was exposed to them.  And the same for next year’s seasonal flu.  Our economy would never recover.  Our children would be taught remotely every day of every year and they would suffer academically, emotionally and socially for the rest of their lives.  At some point the regression students experience would become irreversible.

When are we going to accept the fact that this virus is in control and we must learn to live with it?  If you look at the pattern of infections, hospitalizations and deaths in the US the virus has exploded during times of economic shutdowns and mask mandates just shrugging off these feeble attempts to kill it.  And Joe Biden’s message of doom and gloom has done nothing to kill the virus or motivate our citizens.

If we want to defeat this virus we must stop the counting, which is a big lie in and of itself.  The infection numbers are full of false positives and double counts.  The deaths are exaggerated by at least 25%, and that is according to Dr. Deborah Birx from the original Covid-19 task force.  The death toll continues to include people who die “with” Covid, but not “from” Covid.  If we had used the same methodology for the great Influenza of 1918, the US would have reported the equivalent of eight million deaths back then. 

There are a few of things, however, that we can do, as citizens, to mitigate the spread of this virus.  First, we need to wash our hands multiple times a day.  In my article “Do Masks Even Work” I point out that some of the Randomized Controlled Trials do show a positive correlation between hand washing and mitigation of virus’.  So, wash your hands.  Second, if you are sick, if you are actually experiencing symptoms, stay home.   Third, consult your doctor and ask if the vaccine is appropriate for you.  Despite the fact that there have been many examples of cross-over infections (people who have been vaccinated but still were infected with Covid), the vaccine has shown evidence of protecting people from infection and of becoming seriously ill if they are.

And there are also a few things that the government should be doing to guide the country out of this pandemic.  First, we need a positive message from the top instead of this “winter of severe illness and death”, which is not only depressing the country, but is also inaccurate.  The Omicron variant actually delivers mild cases and virtually no deaths.  Stop the fearmongering.  Stop the lockdowns.  Stop the mandates, and stop ignoring natural immunity.  Follow the science.  Lockdowns don’t work, but natural immunity does.  Second, the federal government should be executing a “warp speed” version of therapeutics to help people get through the disease quickly and safely once they are infected.  Finally, get our kids back in school (without masks) before it is too late.  They are the least vulnerable and the least likely to spread the virus, but the most likely to suffer the long-term consequences of the current emotional deprivation effort currently in place.