Another Thing Joe Isn't - An Economist

 

Back in November of 2020 I didn’t vote for Joe Biden because of what he was.  I voted against him because of what I thought he wasn’t.  Joe Biden is currently 79 years old and will be within a couple of weeks of being 82 in November of 2024 if he decides to run again.  In 2020 I didn’t think he was a dynamic, energetic, astute man capable of taking on one of the toughest jobs on earth.  In fact, he spent most of his campaign hiding in his basement, not answering questions even from the friendly media that was more than willing to fawn over him.  

Joe is also NOT a uniter.  He has now finally taken his “unity” mask off and revealed to the country exactly who he is.  He is a divider at every opportunity.  In his inaugural speech, unity was a main theme.  Some could argue that it was THE main theme.  That gave me a glimmer of hope that this old political dog could actually learn a couple of new tricks.  First, maybe he was actually telling the truth and, second, maybe he was planning to work with the minority party, which is what this election demanded.  With a 50-50 Senate and a razor thin majority in the House the only “mandate” that could have been suggested is a mandate for cooperation.  But Joe finally and thoroughly snuffed out that hope when, according to his staff, he declared he, “no longer plans to work with Republicans.”  These are not the words of unity but of a repressive, authoritarian and possibly paranoid administration.

And finally, we can now all be certain that our President is not an economist.  I was watching the news late last week when President Biden came on and announced that his plan to solve our inflation problem was to raise taxes on greedy corporations and the ultra-rich billionaires in our country.  I turned to my wife and said, “What the heck does that have to do with solving inflation?”  OK, for those who know me well, I didn’t say “heck”.  

If Milton Friedman had still been alive, I’m sure he would have refuted that thinking, but thankfully, this statement was so ridiculous that even the left-wing owner of the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, had to reject it.  Bezos said, and I quote, “maybe they (the Whitehouse, the Dems, whatever) need to form a new non sequitur board instead.”  BTW – non sequitur refers to a statement that does not logically follow from or is not clearly related to anything previous said.  In other words, an illogical statement.  Bezos continued by saying, “Raising corporate taxes is fine to discuss.  Taming inflation is critical to discuss.  Mushing them together is just misdirection.” 

In this case, I have to agree with Bezos.  Taxing the rich is a pathetic appeal to low-income people in America in an effort to buy their votes.  It suggests that somehow our government will take that money from the ultra-rich and give it to them.  That, of course, will never happen.  But even if it did, it would not have any impact on inflation. That move does not decrease the money supply and if anything, it reduces the productivity of the country by encouraging people not to go back to work.  Increasing the taxes on corporations could also lead to an increase in unemployment as those companies adjust to protect their profitability.  

Joe can say the craziest things, so we as citizens of this country have to think hard about what he is saying and the implications that his policies will have on our lives.  And there is at least one more thing the Joe isn’t.  He just told us that he is not “a mind reader” in answer to what he could have done about the baby formula shortage we are currently experiencing in the country today.  The Abbott production facility at the center of this scarcity was closed in January.  Joe received at least one letter from Congresswoman Elise Stefanik in February warning about the shortage that was about to happen.  Maybe Joe needs to be a lip-reader, or turn up his hearing aid or just read his damn mail.  If he had, we might not even have had to suffer through this chaotic shortage caused by government incompetence.

What America needs is a President who IS a number of things.  He should be a uniting influence in The United States of America.  He or she needs to recognize the kindness, generosity and strength of the vast majority of American people instead of constantly magnifying the tiny thimble full of deplorables that exist here and throughout the world.  That person needs to listen to and work with the minority party which represents half of the country as the 2020 elections suggest.  He needs to be a great communicator to clearly speak to the American people and reassure them that the country is heading in the right direction.  Our President also needs to be wise, and support policies that will move us forward. Embrace an “all of the above” energy policy to bring down the price of gas today and invest in renewables for the future.  Secure our southern border, so that we can even begin thinking about what to do with the people who are already here in our country illegally.  Our President should project a positive vision for the country and the policies that will deliver it instead of an angry old man who is trying to blame everyone else for our problems.  President Biden quoted Harry Truman early is his Presidency when he said, “the buck stops here”.  It’s time he started to deliver on that promise.  

Roe, Roe, Roe Your Vote

 

The current administration finds itself in a dilemma.  They have no real accomplishments to run on.  They are underwater in the polls on almost every issue that Americans care about such as the economy, border security, inflation and crime.  Thus, they are grasping at straws for any issue that might help them in November, and along came Roe v Wade.  And now the far left is on a campaign of fearmongering, hatred, violence and even misinformation to excite their base.  Too bad the newly proposed Ministry of Truth isn’t up and running with its proposed leader Nina “Mary Poppins” Jankowicz.

So maybe the first thing we should clear up is – what did Justice Blackmun say in his majority opinion on Roe v Wade.  First, Blackmun defendeded the rights of states to limit abortions.  He, in fact, wrote, “a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.”  He also did NOT support abortion on demand with no limits, as is the Democrat Party position.  His actual words were, “the right (to an abortion), nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant.”

Next, we should clear up what Justice Alito said in his draft.  Many people, maybe most, believe that an overturn of Roe v Wade will make abortion illegal across the country.  Alito, however, made it very clear that the decision on abortion will simply be transferred to the states, where most constitutional scholars, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, believe it should rest.  Currently, abortion is not illegal in ANY state in the union.  Half of the states limit abortions to what has been defined as “viability”.  18 more states limit it to 20 weeks, which is very close to the viability definition (today), but the remaining seven have no limit.  So, the Alito draft does not make abortion illegal.  Far from it.  Maybe Mary Poppins should be singing about that little piece of misinformation.

The leak of Justice Alito’s draft opinion, which has been argued to be criminal, has unleashed other illegal activity by the alt-left.  Certainly, we can all understand that vandalism and destruction of property is criminal, but there are also laws that protect the Supreme Court Justices and churches from harassment and intimidation, and those laws are being violated as I write this article.  I believe this administration will lose ground with all but their most rabid base if they do not vociferously condemn these actions.  A single tweet by Jen Psaki will not cut it.  

Now, what does the Alito draft opinion actually say.  First, it suggests that Roe v Wade was bad law from the beginning and in that respect compares it to Plessy v Ferguson, which codified the “separate but equal” concept.  Plessy was passed by a 7-1 vote back in 1896 and stood as a precedent until it was overturned almost 60 years later in 1954 through the Brown v The Board of Education unanimous opinion.

Alito also suggests that Roe was passed in 1973 by ignoring precedents set in the states.  He suggested that to create a Constitutional right controlled at the federal level, that right had to be “rooted in our Nation's history and tradition”.  In 1973, no state in the Union had recognized that right, and Blackmun simply failed to point that out in his opinion.  Since that time, however, every state has created that right with its own limitations in mind, and that is where that decision should lie.  Alito made it clear that abortion rights were not being eliminated, but simply given to the states.  

He also made it clear that this decision did NOT apply to any other rights currently claimed in this country. The fearmongering and misinformation about other rights that could be eliminated, like interracial marriage, birth control and same-sex marriage is patently absurd.  Alito’s actual words were, "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion".  Ask Justice Thomas, who has been part of an interracial marriage since 1987, if he would vote to overturn the national right for interracial marriage.

One more challenge that should be made to bring some sanity to this discussion is the assertion by the pro-abortion community that it is “my body, my choice”.  The reality is that the baby in the mother’s womb is a completely different and unique DNA that has never existed before and will never exist again.  It is not the mother’s body, and she and the rest of society have a responsibility to protect it.  The yet to be born are the truly voiceless.

It is my opinion that all of this misinformation about the fate of abortion rights in America will not work for the Dems because the vast majority of the American people do not align with their position of abortion on demand up to the time of birth.  Almost 70% of the country believe in limiting abortion to the first trimester (12 - 13 weeks).  Remember the Mississippi law would prohibit abortion after 15 weeks with exceptions for the life of the mother.  Only 7% of the country believe in completely unrestricted tax payer funded abortions, which is the Democrat Party position.  When the truth gets out, which is the responsibility of Republicans, Democrats will find that their last hope for an issue they can rally their base around has alluded them.

Choice

 

When people in The United States talk about “choice” there seems to be only one issue that comes to mind, and that is abortion.  Those who define themselves as “Pro-Choice” will tenaciously defend a woman’s right to “choose” whether to give birth to a baby that they have partnered to conceive.  My readers know that I believe that life begins at conception, but I also understand that this issue is not a simple one.  Rape, incest and protection of the life of the mother are just a few of the complicating factors that can make this “choice” difficult.  I still believe that the best political position came from Bill Clinton, when he said, “abortion should be legal, safe and RARE”.  

But I do believe strongly in the concept of “choice” in America.  In fact, our country was founded on the concept of “liberty for all”, which implies that people should have a choice to do just about everything in this country.  However, when it comes to the choice to get a Covid-19 vaccine shot or not, these same people who doggedly defend the right to choose to have an abortion mysteriously forget the very principle they have been fighting for.  And the same goes for mask wearing.

The argument that they will make is that if you don’t get a shot or wear a mask, “you are killing people”.  But let’s all recognize how ridiculous that rationalization is.  First, this disease has over a 99% survival rate, and we have long since learned that people who get the vaccine can still be infected and can transmit this disease.  People who choose not to get vaccinated or wear a mask are making a choice about the risks they are willing to take in order to live a normal life. This is a stance that even Dr. Anthony Fauci has recently suggested that we will ALL need to accept since Covid-19 may be with us forever.  People who choose not to get a shot or wear a mask may also be making a comment that they are not willing to submit to fear, especially an irrational one that has been sold to us all by our politicians and the media.

Just a side note, it is amazing that the people who support the absolute right to an abortion will use the “you’re killing people” argument against people who would decline to get the shot or wear a mask.  Can the hypocrisy get any thicker?  Abortion has a 0% survival rate for the life being aborted.  Whether you believe that a fetus is a lump of cells or a child in-the-making, as I do, you must admit that if an abortion is not performed, a child would be born in almost every case.

Another “choice” that many of these same people want to deny is the choice of a parent as to where to send their children to school.  We all pay for a public-school education through our taxes and virtually every penny of that funding goes to the public-school system.  If you would “choose” to send your children to a private school, the public-school system will keep your tax money and then you get the privilege of paying for a second education for you children through the tuition you will pay.  

What this system says is that people with resources have the “choice” to pay for two educations, but the rest of country has no choice.  Today, only about 9% of US families send their children to private schools and 91% have only one choice – public schools.  If education was a business in America, it would be considered a monopoly, which is one thing our government is supposed to protect against.  And that is because monopolies deliver high costs, poor service and virtually no innovation in a capitalistic society.

Do you know what percent of Congress people send their children to private schools?  45%.  That is five times the rate of the average American.  And, of course, virtually every US President with children of school age “chose” to send their children to private schools.  Bill Clinton and Barack Obama “chose’ to send their children to the snooty and expensive Sidwell Friends School which would cost the rests of us over $40,000 a year to “choose” to send our first grader there.  Of course, Bill said that Chelsea made that “choice”.  What a cop out.  John Kennedy actually created a school at the White House for Caroline and 10 of her closest friends, not a “choice” that the rest of us will have or could afford.

But as public schools stray from teaching the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic and embracing controversial concepts like Critical Race Theory and Gender fluidity, parents need a real “choice”.  CRT is not history and it is not even fact.  It is, as its name implies, a theory that might have a place in colleges after minds have developed.  It is not, however, appropriate for impressionable five, six and seven-year-olds who can’t understand the long-term implications of their decisions.  For example, could I convince a five-year-old boy that he was actually a girl if I had access to him for six hours a day and almost 200 days a year.   Certainly, but is that my job?

In America, shouldn’t our average or even poorer citizens have the same choice in the education of their children as our political leaders?  Of course, but most our citizens can’t afford to pay for two educations, one through their taxes and one through tuition.  Fundamentally, our tax money should follow the child, not a building, as in a voucher system.  The sooner we can make that happen the sooner our educational system will begin to improve as public schools are forced to compete and get better, or die.  

Now, as my friend Matt would point out, there are issues that need to be worked out as we make this transition.  Private schools, for example, will need to ensure that children can even get to these schools as public schools do today.  They will have to offer resources that will accommodate all special needs children and not just strip the most capable students from public schools.  This would leave that system with only the biggest challenges to educate.  

All of these issues can be worked out, but we must demand a commitment to real choice for all American families, not just the elite.  When we get there, our schools will be better, our families will be stronger and our children will be smarter.  

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.