One of my favorite songs of all time is "God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood.

The song is also sometimes referred to as "Proud to Be an American".

It's lyrics begin like this.

If tomorrow all the things were gone

I worked for all my life

And I had to start again

With just my children and my wife

I thank my lucky stars

To be living here today

'Cause the flag still stands for freedom

And they can't take that away

And I'm proud to be an American

Where at least I know I'm free

And I won't forget the men who died

Who gave that right to me

And I'd gladly stand up next to you

And defend Her still today

'Cause there ain't no doubt

I love this land

God Bless the U.S.A.

Greenwood collaborated with the United States Air Force Band, the Singing Sergeants and vocal group Home Free during the pandemic on a terrific version of the song that is worth watching on July 4th.

This is another version of the song that was done by Home Free with Mount Rushmore as the backdrop.

Of course, my personal favorite is still Lee Greenwood's original version which was released in 1984.

Unfortunately, it seems that fewer and fewer people these days are "proud to be an American".

A recent Gallup poll shows that a record low 38% now say that they are extremely proud to be American.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/394202/record-low-extremely-proud-american.aspx

20 years ago that number was 70%.

Among Democrats that number is only 26%. That is up from 22% when Trump was President in 2019.

However, Republicans who say they are extremely proud to be an American has dropped from 76% in 2019 to only 58% today.

I wonder what the reason for that is?

Among those who are 18-34, only 25% say they are extremely proud and 23% say they are very proud to be an American. That is not even a majority.

Among those age 55+, 80% are extremely or very proud to be an American.

How do Democrats in Tucson, Arizona plan to celebrate July 4th?

Source: https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1543247413464416256

That tweet has bow been deleted....but really?

Democrats control the White House, House of Representatives and the United States Senate. There are two Democrats representing Arizona in the U.S. Senate. Democrats control four of the five seats on the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

Bring your anger?

I would say the system is working pretty well for them.

It is hard to understand anything I have cited above while at the same time millions of people are trying to cross our borders right now to be in the United States of America. A lot of them are trying to get to Tucson, Arizona which is just 70 miles north of the Mexican border.

Why do we see the scorn we do about the United States of America from Democrats in particular?

It seems apparent that a big reason the young have negative views about America is due to our liberal education system that spends more time maligning the United States and its Founders than extolling its virtues.

They love to push the narrative to their students that everything about the United States is illegitimate in that it was founded by a bunch of rich, white men who created a system based on slavery and were primarily concerned with protecting their own self interests.

Of course, this narrative fails to mention that our Founders were generally the elite in the American colonies. The British system had worked out well for their self interests. They were "the 1%" in that day and age.

By declaring independence from the British, they put all that they had at risk--their lives, their livelihoods, and their riches..

As Benjamin Franklin put it so aptly to the other Founders right after they put their names on the Declaration of Independence.

Why did they do it?

They valued freedom and independence for themselves and their fellow Americans more than their own self-interests.

How many would do the same today?

The United States founding is also maligned and students are taught that the country is evil because it was established on a foundation of slavery.

The narrative that many Leftists believe today is that the United States of America is inherently flawed and evil because slavery was not explicitly forbidden in its founding documents. The argument follows that all of the Founders, at a minimum, were complicit in supporting the institution of slavery and that everything that follows is forever tainted and illegitimate.

I find it amusing that the primary thing that progressives seem to have that supports their view that the country is inherently flawed is to cite things from 250 years ago. I guess none of the good that the country did over the next 250 years counts? Being the first country in the world to provide power to the people to govern themselves. Providing the highest standard of living to people in the history of the world. Confronting and defeating the axis of evil (Germany and Japan) in WWII. Rebuilding those countries and returning those countries to the citizens after they had been defeated. When has that ever been done in the history of mankind?

It should also be remembered that our Founders inherited the slave system from the British. It was not an invention by our Founders. In fact, a little known fact is that in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson included a provision that attacked slavery and the King's actions in "suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce."

This passage was deleted in the final Declaration that was approved but I think it pretty clearly shows that Jefferson was not aiding in "the construction of institutionalized racism and subjugation of racism" as has been alleged by Leftists.  He was actually attempting to deconstruct it.

Yes, some of the Founders owned slaves but most of those were inherited. Most of our Founders wanted to curtail and find a way out of slavery. That is one of the main reasons that slaves were only counted as 3/5 in census calculations for the number of reps each state got in Congress. It was done to limit the influence of the slave states so they could not expand the practice. It was to put pressure on those states to end the practice. Notice it did not apply to free black citizens. They were fully counted. It only applied to slaves. It was a penalty. 

Why did Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers accede to removing this language in the Declaration of Independence? Quite simply, if they were to be successful in breaking away from Great Britain, and gaining independence, all 13 colonies had to be totally united. If not, as Franklin said, they all might hang separately.

The larger goal of independence from Great Britain took precedence as it was not possible to move forward without all colonies being united on the issue of slavery. Several southern colonies simply would not sign on to the Declaration of Independence with that passage in it. The Founders wanted freedom from Great Britain. They were not going to achieve that goal by dividing the colonies at the outset.

Tough compromises are necessary on tough issues. Moving forward allows for a fight for another day. Retaining the status quo accomplished nothing for the cause of freedom in the 1770's---for anyone---colonists or slaves.

Jefferson was later instrumental in making sure there was a ban on slavery in the Northwest Ordinance in 1787 and it was Jefferson who as President initiated the legislation that banned the importation of any more slaves.

We don't tend to hear things referred to as "odd" any more.

I guess that is because it is not "woke" to make any judgment about what is supposed to be ordinary or usual and what is not. There is no "truth" other than what the individual believes for themselves. As a result, if there is no ordinary or usual there can be nothing that is odd.

Of course, that has not been the case with Covid.

Since the Covid pandemic began there has always been an accepted narrative of what was necessary to curb the pandemic.

We were told what those steps were and any opinions to the contrary were censored and silenced as misinformation. Any alternatives weren't allowed to be considered as "odd". They were treated as if they were an impossibility.

By now, you are fully familiar with what those narratives were and how they even evolved over time.

Lockdowns were the only way to curb the pandemic. In the first year of the pandemic we were told that Australia and New Zealand proved this and any failures elsewhere were due to the fact that they had not locked down hard enough.

Schools had to be closed.

Everyone had to wear a mask.

Vaccines were necessary and any suggested alternative treatments were dangerous.

The narrative at first was that boosters would never be necessary until the narrative changed and they became necessary for all.

As we look back over the last two years it is easier to put those narratives into perspective.

Did things turn out as EXPECTED based on what we were told?

You can be the judge of that for yourself.

However, here are a few facts that have me saying, "Well, that is odd".

Isn't it odd that Australia and New Zealand now have more cumulative confirmed cases of Covid per capita than the United States since the pandemic began?

Isn't it odd that the explosion of cases in Australia and New Zealand occurred despite the fact that over 80% of every man, woman and child in these countries was fully vaccinated.

Is it just an incredible coincidence that the enormous increase in cases in Australia and New Zealand began soon after booster doses were very first administered?

Source: The New York Times

Daily new hospital admissions are 53% higher now than they were at the same time last year.

For the most vulnerable age 70+ age group  91%+ fully vaccinated), daily hospital admissions from Covid are 128% higher than last year.

Source: The New York Times

Source: https://www.eugyppius.com/p/omicron-ba5-prefers-hypervaccinated?utm_source=email

 

Source: https://www.eugyppius.com/p/omicron-ba5-prefers-hypervaccinated?utm_source=email

East Germans have direct experience with government propaganda, and have proven more resistent to the vaccination campaign than Westerners. Their reward, after being much maligned by state media, is now higher levels of natural immunity and lower rates of BA.5 infection, which appears to infect vaccinated populations preferentially.

As the effects of vaccine failure grow clearer, you have to wonder how long the pandemicists will be able to publish even simple infection statistics, without raising extremely awkward questions.

Source: https://twitter.com/ITGuy1959/status/1539689915226947584/photo/1

Source: https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2022/pdf/CDC_HAN_467.pdf

 I wrote a blog post in 2015 shortly after the horrific Islamic terrorist attacks in France that was entitled,

"No One Is Liberal When It Is Their Life".

That was when ultra liberal Francois Hollande was President of France. 

Hollahde was a committed liberal socialist.

A key platform that he ran on for the Presidency in 2012 was a promise for the early withdrawal of French combat troops from Afghanistan.

As recently as two months before the attacks he spoke out against those European countries that were attempting to limit the number of Middle Eastern migrants into their countries.

Those attacks quickly resulted in Hollande reversing course 180 degrees from his prior statements.

This is what I wrote at that time.

It has been said that "there are no atheists in foxholes". When the bullets and bombs start flying in war those in the middle of it are looking for a higher power to see them through harm's way.

It seems to me that there also exists a corollary aphorism.

There are no liberals when it is your life and security at risk.

If you don't believe it, look no further than the actions of French President Francois Hollande in the aftermath of the horrific ISIS attacks in Paris several weeks ago.

This is what Hollande said the morning after the attacks.

"We are going to lead a war which will be pitiless."

I guess that stands in contrast to the pitiful effort that President Obama has done in confronting ISIS.

Hollande also quickly ordered a state of emergency and closed France's borders. The first time that had occurred since 1944.

That is quite a change from his views in September (two months prior) isn't it?

It seems we are seeing a similar transformation in Europe in their views regarding the use of fossil fuels.

Dreams of a "green future" and having disdain for the use of fossil fuels sounds great as long as you have power to heat and cool your home, run your factories and turn on your hair dryer.

It is not so great when you find out your lives and your economies simply can't exist without them.

Europe is discovering this very quickly. 

Who ever thought that we would see this headline?

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-25/germany-pushes-for-g-7-reversal-on-fossil-fuels-in-climate-blow#xj4y7vzkg

As winter nears we will see the full dimensions of this problem reveal itself in even starker detail in Germany and  the rest of Europe.

This is what France's top three energy companies are telling its consumers right now.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/26/french-energy-giants-tell-households-ration-supplies-ahead-looming/

One more perspective on what may be coming.

Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-mistakes-were-made-why-germany-may-freeze-in-the-dark-this-winter/

You may recall that Germany had previously idled most of its coal-fired electric generator plants and half of its nuclear power plants as of December 31, 2021 (talk about bad timing!).

It had planned to close the rest of its nuclear power plants this year.

As I have stated before in these pages, I fully support developing newer, cleaner and more sustainable sources of energy. Count me as someone who would love to see a "green" perpetual motion machine to power everything man needs on the planet.

I have great confidence that given free markets economies and human ingenuity we will find better sources of energy to power our lives. This has been proven time and time again over the course of human history.

However, we have never voluntarily abandoned something that is accessible and affordable for something that is speculative and expensive.

Energy drives the economy. 

Ignoring that fact puts everything and everyone at risk on this planet.

Europe is beginning to see the reality of all of this.

Most of Europe foolishly bought into the climate change agenda and then compounded that mistake by relying on Russia for its oil and gas needs.

In the meantime, China must be laughing at the insanity of all of it.

China and India also recently announced that they intend to increase coal output by another 700 million tons by the end of next year.

To put that in context, that additional increase alone is enough to completely wipe all of the reductions the United States has achieved in carbon emissions since 2005 until today.

That reduction is not trivial---the United States has reduced carbon emissions almost 25% over that period despite an increasing population and economy. The increase also was greater after President Trump took us out of the Paris climate accords.

Looking at it from a broader perspective, this graph shows carbon emissions from 2000-2020 for the United States, Europe, China and India.

The argument is that banning fossil fuels are necessary to save the planet and humanity.

However, aren't China and India part of the same planet?

Since 2000, Europe and the United States have reduced carbon emissions by 2.5 billion tonnes.

At the same time, China and India have increased carbon emissions by 9.7 billion tonnes.

It seems that the Western economies have been playing a loser's game for over 20 years.

It is also not going to get any better looking at where China and India are headed.

The problem for Europe may soon not be just a reduced quality of life due to the "green agenda" but life itself may become more tenuous without energy to keep people warm and factories and farms running.

Energy and the economy are inextricably linked. 

Energy prices are also built into every aspect of the economy.

Consider recent increases in the Producer Price Index (year over year) in various European countries. These price increase will undoubtedly be heading to the European consumer soon.

By comparison, the most recent PPI for the United States was 10.8%.

You have to wonder how much longer before we understand the truth of the following aphorism.

"No one cares about Greta Thunberg when they are freezing or starving to death".

Greta Thunberg made lots of headlines in 2019 when she was telling elected officials of Western countries  they had failed her generation on climate change because "you did not act in time."

She was right about not acting in time.

She just got the issue wrong.

Paging Greta Thunberg. Paging Greta Thunberg. Paging Great Thunberg.

It has been interesting watching the reactions to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Liberal Democrats seem to be confused in that they believe that a constitutional "right" has been taken away in the Supreme Court's ruling.

There is no such "right" to an abortion in the Constitution. It is also a fact that there was nothing in the Nation's history or tradition that would even suggest that such a right was ever contemplated until the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down by a divided Supreme Court almost 200 years after the Constitution was originally ratified.

The Constitution sets out specific "rights" in the document. It left other matters to the democratic process. Roe v. Wade attempted to establish a right about something that the Founders clearly meant to be decided by the voters and their representatives.

The Founders laid out a very specific construct on how additional "rights" could be added through the amendment process. It has been used to provide women the right to vote. It was used to abolish slavery. It was even used to prohibit the ability to make, distribute and consume alcohol. It then was used to reverse that prohibition.

The amendment process is not easy. It was meant to insure there was a clear consensus before our founding document was changed. 

You need 2/3 of the votes in the House and Senate. You also need 3/4 of the legislatures in the states. You don't need the President's concurrence. However, if you have the votes and support of the people you can have any right (of take away any enumerated right) you want.

Many on the Left also seem to be confused on how the Supreme Court can strike down a restrictive gun law in New York but also rule  that each state should have the latitude to determine its laws on abortion.

The difference is that the right to bear arms is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The right to an abortion is not mentioned (or even hinted at) anywhere in the document.

Each state also has rights enumerated in the Constitution as set out in the Tenth Amendment.

In simple terms, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets out the limits to the powers of the federal government. 

Any powers that the Constitution does not give to the federal government are the states’ responsibility.

Liberals are also arguing that the Supreme Court should not be overturning the precedent that existed and was established with Roe v. Wade.

However, those same Liberals did not seem to have any problem 49 years ago when the Supreme Court ignored prior precedence when they first determined there was a right to abortion.

They also don't seem to believe that there was anything wrong when the Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Eduction in 1954 overturned the prior constitutionality of racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine established in 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson.

Democrats also did not seem to mind when the Supreme Court ruled there was a "right" to gay marriage seven years ago.

At the time of that ruling, 30 states had provisions in their constitutions limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Those states included California! Another seven states had statutes that banned gay marriage.

Democrats had no problem when the Supreme Court ignored these state constitutional provisions and 200 years of historical and legal precedence.

That Supreme Court ruling also overturned a federal law. "The Defense of Marriage Act" held that any spouses in a gay marriage under any state law would not be eligible for any federal benefits (Social Security, Medicare, welfare, etc.). It was clear where democracy was on this issue at that time.

It is also interesting to see Democrats who have tried to make so much of the "insurrection" of January 6 turn around and state that they will now defy the law of the land.

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/maxine-waters-reacts-dobbs-ruling-hell-supreme-court-we-will-defy-them

That kind of sounds like a call for insurrection.

Even worse is the Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stating that the military is going to do what they believe is best for the military.

What? 

I guess Secretary Austin forgot about the oath that all military members take upon joining the service.

That oath states that why will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

This is even more troubling in that current U.S. law does not permit abortions at U.S. military facilities or the use of military insurance to pay for an abortion.except in cases where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or the mother's life is at risk.

Is Secretary Austin stating that the military is a higher authority than the Supreme Court when it comes to the Constitution or Congress when it involves the law?

The problem the Democrats have is they leaned on a non-legislative body to create a right in the Constitution that did not exist. A "right" that was meant to be determined by the democratic process.

Democrats had many opportunities over the last 50 years to attempt use the democratic process to give that right some type of legislative or constitutional authority.

They never even tried.

The reason they did not is they never had the votes despite times in which they had overwhelming numbers in the House and Senate and a Democrat as President. 

The will of the people was simply not there on the issue.

It was easier to rely on nine justices (five is all they really needed).

When Democrat Presidents ran for office they also sounded like moderates for the same reason.

Bill Clinton said that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."

Barack Obama used similar messaging when he ran for President and even stated early in his first term that he wanted to "reduce the number of women seeking abortions." 

Joe Biden stated for decades while in public office that his Catholic faith meant that he was personally opposed to abortion but it was his duty to protect a woman's right to choose because it was the law of the land.

What about now?

On the other side of this was Donald Trump who ran for President and pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices that would follow the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.

There was no bait and switch. He told the voters what his position was and he did what he said he would do when he was elected.

Here is Trump is his final debate with Hillary Clinton in which he clearly stated what he intended to do in the appointment of justices. He also predicted that with the justices he intended to appoint that Roe v. Wade would eventually be overturned.

Trump was elected by the people and he did exactly what he promised voters he would do.

This is a clear example of democracy in action. 

Some Democrats are now saying that they want to pass legislation that conforms with the Roe v.Wade decision.

However, if they do would this even be constitutional in that the Supreme Court has ruled this is a state's rights issue?

I also doubt Democrats are really serious about this in that they would clearly prefer to use this as a political issue heading into the mid-terms than trying to find a solution.

If the Democrats do move forward you can be sure the legislation would go much further than Roe v. Wade. Their radical base in the party would want to allow abortions for the entire nine months.

What would they do if a group of moderate Republicans offered to go along if abortion was limited to rape, incest and the first 12 weeks  of pregnancy but no further?

This is where most of the rest of the world is that allows abortion and polling indicates that is where a majority of American voters are.

This is from a Pew Research Center poll. from May, 2022.

Source: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23167397/abortion-public-opinion-polls-americans

The majority do not want unrestricted rights to abortion nor do they want absolute restrictions.

I would think this is where democracy will probably take us on this issue after a period of some confusion and consternation in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision.

The only problem is that Democrats have proven they do not like democracy.

Joe Biden has now decided the answer to high gasoline prices is for the gas station operators to lower their prices.

Source: https://twitter.com/BonginoReport/status/1539694149754134528

He suggests that it is some sort of patriotic duty to do so.

This is what Biden said Wednesday on the subject of high gas prices.

To the companies running gas stations and setting those prices at the pump: This is a time of war, global peril, Ukraine.  These are not normal times.

Bring down the price you are charging at the pump to reflect the cost you are paying for the product.  Do it now.  Do it today.  Your customers, the American people, they need relief now.

As usual Biden (or whoever wrote the speech) is factually challenged.

They also clearly do not read Barron's or know much about the economics of the gas station or oil business,

Most gas stations (57%) are owned by individual operators. They are not owned by companies or giant corporations.

Source: https://thehustle.co/the-economics-of-gas-stations/

Most major oil companies have backed out of the retail gas station business because it isn't very profitable.

In fact, ExxonMobil, which Biden has recently been criticizing almost daily, got out of the retail gas business in 2008.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25126563

The ExxonMobil stations you see are usually owned by individual operators or retail distribution chains that license the name and buy their products from ExxonMobil.

According to IBIS World, gas stations makes an average profit margin of just 1.44% on their fuel sales.

ExxonMobil had a net profit margin of 6.23% in the first quarter, 2022. It would have been lower if it was still in the retail gas business.

Gas stations make the bulk of their profits on what they sell inside---sodas, lottery tickets, bottled water and candy.

Source: https://thehustle.co/the-economics-of-gas-stations/

When will Biden ask Coca Cola and Pepsi to lower their prices or for gas station operators to cut the cost of those soft drinks in half?

I continue to be amazed that Biden is directing all of his focus on inflation on the supposed outrageous profits of oil companies and gas station operators but seems oblivious to the profit margins of companies like these.

Pfizer                                 30.65%

Alphabet (Google)          24.17%

Meta (Facebook)             26.75%

Netflix                               20.30%

Tesla                                  17.69%

(All data from Google Finance)

How come Biden is not calling on these companies to reduce their prices to lower their profits?

Biden's strategy on gas price inflation also includes asking Congress to provide a 90-day suspension of the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon on gas and 24 cents on diesel fuel.

I don't even understand why Biden thinks he has to ask Congress to do this. If he believes he has the authority to cancel $10,000 or more of student loan debt per person why would he not just go ahead and sign an executive order and suspend collection of the gas tax?

(Interesting sidetone---the federal gas tax suspension would cost the federal government $10 billion compared to a $321 billion price tag for cancellation of $10,000 of student debt for every borrower).

Of course, the real question is how is suspending the gas tax for 90 days going to solve anything?

Isn't it something like this?

There is only one rationale for even suggesting it.

It is called POLITICS.

How do I know it is just about politics?

It is because a consummate politician told me it was.

He called it a political stunt.

Source: https://twitter.com/Forbes/status/1539658221861740544

If you wonder why Biden is not following the advice of his friend Barack Obama you need only look at this recent Gallup poll. 

There is outright panic in the White House right now.

87% of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

76% of Democrats hold that view as well.

I want to find someone that is in the 13% that thinks we are headed in the right direction.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" 

You might have heard this philosophical thought experiment at some point.

It raises questions regarding observation and perception which leads to additional questions.

Can something exist without being perceived by consciousness?

Can we assume the unobserved world functions the same as the observed world?

What is the difference between what something is and how it appears?

I have been thinking about this a lot recently as I review the latest Covid data and compare it to the media attention it is receiving today compared to last year.

Last year at the this time, and for all of the previous year, we heard about Covid morning, noon and night.

The incessant messaging bombarded our consciousness.

Masks and other visible reminders of Covid permeated our observed world wherever we went.

Today that is not the case.

There is barely a mention of Covid amidst the news of inflation, gas prices, the stock market meltdown and Ukraine.

You would think Covid had almost gone away.

However, compare confirmed cases last year at this time to what we see currently.

Cases are over 8 times higher now than they were last year and it is barely raising a concern.

This number is also undoubtedly understated when considering the much higher use of home testing this year compared to last year.

Some would argue that the reason for less attention and concern is that the predominant Covid variant today is not as virulent and the vaccines have made the risk of severe illness less likely.

Is that the case?

That view is not supported by the data.

Daily new hospital admissions are substantially higher today than they were at this time last year.

This is especially true for those age 70+ which are the most vulnerable and also the most highly vaccinated group in the country (91.3% of age 65+ fully vaccinated, 70% boosted once. 32% boosted twice per CDC data.).

Hospital admissions for Covid are more than double what they were last year for those age 70+ and 50% higher for all ages in total.

How is this possible if the vaccines are supposed to be "highly effective" in preventing severe disease?

Covid deaths are essentially the same as they were last year.

The 7-day average was 321 last year on June 20, 2021. It is 311 right now.

In addition, most people do not realize that deaths during the Omicron wave this winter were much higher for those age 65+ than they were with the Delta wave last summer which was supposed to be much more deadly. This is a fact that even The New York Times acknowledged.

However, when you consider that there have been over 300 million vaccine doses administered in the United States since this time last year (600 million doses in total since vaccination began) wouldn't the expectation be that deaths would have fallen dramatically?

Has there ever been a vaccine that was considered successful where cases and hospitalizations went up and deaths increased or stayed the same?

The trends in other parts of the world are just as troubling right now.

Consider Portugal which is one of the most vaccinated and boosted nations in the world.

Almost 90% of every man, woman and child in Portugal is fully vaccinated.

65 booster doses have been administered for every 100 people in the nation. The comparable number in the United States is 36 per 100.

There are 20 times the number of confirmed cases in Portugal right now than there were at this time last year.

More troubling are Covid deaths.

Deaths in Portugal are over 10 times what they were at this time last year.

71% of Covid deaths in Portugal have come after Covid vaccines were introduced.

Deaths have also accelerated since boosters were introduced.

It is interesting to compare Portugal with South Africa.

Portugal is a much more advanced country with considerably better health resources for its citizens than what is available in South Africa.

As an indicator, the average life expectancy in Portugal is about 17 years longer than in South Africa.

The Omicron variant was first identified in South Africa. Additional variants to Omicron have also been initially identified in South Africa.

Note that not even a third of the population is fully vaccinated in South Africa.

There have been less than 10% of the booster doses per capita in South Africa as in Portugal.

According to the narrative, you would think Covid would be ravaging South Africa as compared to Portugal.

However, the exact opposite is true.

This chart shows Covid deaths per capita in Portugal and South Africa since the beginning of the year.

Portugal is experiencing more Covid deaths right now than it did in the January, 2021 surge.

South Africa has 1/20 of the deaths per capita that Portugal is seeing right now.

What is also interesting is that deaths per capita in both countries were tracking pretty closely until January, 2021 when vaccines were first introduced and Portugal began its aggressive mass vaccination campaign.

At that point, the experience of the two countries diverged.

When I see data like this I cannot help but think of the warnings of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche and the risks he sees in mass vaccination efforts such as Portugal has engaged in.

I have written about Vanden Bossche's theories before in these pages here, here and here.

Vanden Bossche has recently warned that he foresees that Omicron will mutate further into a variant that is both more contagious and more virulent than we have experienced before.

Source: https://twitter.com/DavidLWindt/status/1533532689957113856

He predicts that it will be significantly more deadly.

Hospitalizations will spike, especially in highly vaccinated countries.

Source: https://twitter.com/DavidLWindt/status/1536694303384391680

Most troubling is that he believes  he virus will be more dangerous to those who are vaccinated than those who are not and even more dangerous to those who are boosted than those who are merely vaccinated.

He also stated a month ago that he expected we might see this during the summer rather than with an expected seasonal surge in the Fall.

Is this what we are seeing in Portugal?

Has this next stage also begun in Israel that is also one of the most vaccinated and boosted countries in the world?

This is the headline from a story out of Israel from last Friday.

Source: https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/coronavirus/1655482328-covid-israel-reports-70-rise-in-seriously-ill-patients

I don't know but the data I am seeing should raise questions in anyone who is paying attention.

As I have written before, I fervently hope that Dr. Vanden Bossche is wrong.

However, the data, and what we have seen over the last year and a half, better supports the predictions that Vanden Bossche has made compared to anyone else I have studied.

If Vanden Bossche is correct, we face some very challenging times ahead.

I don't even want to comprehend what is the result if we have hundreds of thousands of vaccinated people who might be hospitalized or die after trusting government and public health authorities that they had to be vaccinated for their own health and the good of society.

If Vanden Bossche is correct, the advice we were given was 180 degrees wrong.

If anything close to what Vanden Bossche is saying is correct, the sound will not just be like one tree falling in a forest.

It will be as if the entire forest came down.

And the reverberations will last several generations as trust in our institutions and health professionals will be irreparably damaged.

I will say it again.

We need to hope and pray that Vanden Bossche is wrong.

However, no one should ignore what he is saying. That is especially true considering his past record.

The fact that you were not there to hear the sound of the tree falling does not mean that it can be totally ignored or dismissed as misinformation.

It is information. Take it or leave it as the case will be. It is not misinformation merely because it does not conform to the narrative or how someone wants things to appear.

Only future events will tell us how big the tree (or the forest) was when it fell or whether it fell at all.

In these times it is important to always keep in mind the difference between what something is (the reality) and how it appears (the narrative).

I will continue to write about the data and facts for you to consider and compare to the media and public health narrative so you can make up your own mind on what is reality and who and what to believe (BeeLine included).

This past week the FDA authorized emergency use of the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines for children as young as 6 months of age.

For the Pfizer vaccine, this extended the authority for those ages 6 months up to 5 years of age.

For Moderna, this now allows the vaccines for use up to 17 years of age. Previously, Moderna had only been authorized for those 18 years of age and older.

Since the authority is being given you might want to know what the emergency is?

According to the CDC, there have been 143 deaths of children ages 1-4 from Covid since January 1, 2020. 

Over that same span of almost 2-1/2 years, there have been 382 deaths from the flu and pneumonia.

Source: https://data.cdc.gov/widgets/9bhg-hcku?mobile_redirect=true

Covid deaths in this age group are barely a third of flu and pneumonia deaths and there were few cases of influenza for a good portion of the last two years.

For all children 0-17 in the United States, there have been 1,086 reported deaths from Covid since January 1, 2020 compared to 1,601 deaths from flu and pneumonia and 81,532 total deaths.

This is out of a population of almost 75 million who are under the age of 18.

Does this look like an emergency?

What is even more concerning is that the United States is the only country in the entire world that has authorized these vaccines for children this young.

No countries in Europe have done it. Sweden still has not authorized these vaccines for anyone under age 12.

Israel has not done it.

Japan has not done it.

China has not done it.

Cuba has not done it.

Joe Biden's Chief of Staff, Ron Klein, thinks this is an accomplishment?

I don't think he is making the point he thinks he is.

You may recall that when the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were authorized initially for adults it was stated they were 95%+ effective for preventing infection from Covid based on the clinical trials.

We now know that was nowhere close to being true.

How effective are the vaccines supposed to be for children?

For children ages 2-5 the clinical trial data released by Moderna found that its vaccine was only 36.8% effective in preventing Covid. It was 50.6% effective for those 6 months to 23 months.

It has always previously been the rule that if a vaccine was not at least 50% effective it could not be authorized by the FDA for use.

I guess "the science" has changed.

Follow ups in the clinical trials also only included a mere two months. We also know that any effectiveness these vaccines have seems to drop rapidly after two months such that at six months there is little, if any, protection.

That is why we are now on what seems to be an endless call for additional booster shots.

Is it not curious that the follow up in the trials stopped at two months?

I would also suggest that all parents view this video by Dr. Claire Craig who provides a detailed review of the Pfizer trial to better understand what were the underlying results of that clinical trial. It is difficult to believe that this is "the science" and the FDA authorized the vaccine for use with children.

An important tool that is used in medicine to determine whether any health intervention is useful is the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) calculation.

This is a simple explanation of the concept.

Source: https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/tips-for-understanding-studies/number-needed-to-treat/

This is due to the fact that every medical intervention carries risks. Therefore, it is important that there are clear benefits in the intervention to justify the associated risks.

A rule of thumb is that an NNT of less than 5 is associated with a meaningful health benefit. This means that treating 5 people with a health procedure, drug, vaccine in order to prevent one adverse event provides a meaningful health benefit.

An NNT of 15 or above is almost certain to be associated with a small net benefit at most.

The higher the NNT the more certain you are that the intervention should not be undertaken. 

The risks of the intervention do not justify any potential health benefit.

What is the calculated NNT for the Covid vaccines for children?

This is a slide that was in the presentation to the FDA last week that was quickly passed over without discussion.

I guess you can understand why that was.

Credit: https://twitter.com/the_Arkivist/status/1538197968632926214/photo/1

The obvious question is why did the FDA recommend these vaccines for children when the data clearly suggests that the benefits are not justified by the risks?

It is difficult to look at the data and not conclude that the FDA, CDC and others involved in the vaccine approval process are either completely incompetent or totally co-opted by Big Pharma.

The latter is the only logical explanation.

The emergency here appears to be that Pfizer and Moderna need to sell more vaccines because vaccine uptake has fallen to almost nothing,

This is the latest CDC data on vaccine uptake.

That has led to this. 

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/covid-vaccine-doses-wasted-rcna31399

“The demand has plateaued or is coming down, and that leads to open-vial wastage — especially with multidose vials,” said Ravi Anupindi, a professor of operations research and management at the University of Michigan who has studied vaccination campaigns.

“It’s a demand problem,” he added.

In addition, liability protection is only provided to Pfizer and Moderna for these vaccines going forward if they are approved for children and the CDC puts them on the childhood vaccine schedule. If this is done, liability protection extends to adults using the vaccine as well. Only vaccines that are authorized for emergency use or are approved and on the CDC's childhood vaccine schedule are given liability protection under the law.

It appears to some observers the primary reason to extend the vaccine to children is to get the Covid vaccines on the childhood vaccine schedule which will then provide Pfizer and Moderna with liability protection for both children and adults since Pfizer and Moderna now have "approved" vaccines for adults.

For example, that is the conclusion of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. who is the Chairman of the non-profit organization, Children's Health Defense.

If that is not the case, how do you explain this decision looking at the facts above?

I always thought the first priority of any society was to protect the children.

You would like to think that still applies in the United States in 2022.

Looking at the facts above makes me wonder whether that is still true.

Joe Biden seems to be working hard every day to find someone to blame for high gasoline prices.

He has blamed Vladimir Putin.

He has blamed the Saudis for not pumping more oil.

He has now apparently decided to blame ExxonMobil and the oil companies for their profits being too high.

Source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/white-house-shifts-blaming-putin-oil-companies-high-gas-prices-patriots

Biden is also saying that it is their "patriotic duty" to produce more gasoline.

He has even threatened oil refiners with using "emergency powers" if they don't get more gasoline supplies to the market.

The president has harshly criticized what he views as profiteering amid a global crisis that could potentially push Europe and other parts of the world into a recession, saying after a speech Friday that ExxonMobil "made more money than God this year." 

ExxonMobil responded by saying it has already informed the administration of its planned investments to increase oil production and refining capacity.

Of course, Biden is the same guy who cancelled the Keystone Pipeline on his first day in office and stated while he was running for President that oil executives should be put in jail for the environmental damage caused by oil and gas drilling.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7837265/We-jail-Biden-wants-prosecute-fossil-fuel-executives-environment-damage.html

The Biden administration is also responsible for implementing regulations upon taking office that have effectively meant that at least two million barrels of refining capacity per day that we had in the United States in 2020 is no longer operating.

That puts us at about the same refining capacity we had in 2010---18 million barrels per day.

However, gasoline demand that was 18 million barrels per day in 2010 is now 20.5 million barrels.

Therefore, we need 20.5 million barrels per day and we only have the refining capacity for 18 million.

Do you see a problem?

I can confidently state that if Donald Trump was in office the oil companies would not have shut down 2 million barrels/day of capacity.

Biden and the Democrats have made the regulatory burden of operating these plants economically unfeasible.

What about the argument that ExxonMobil and the other oil companies and refiners are making too much money?

ExxonMobil's net profit margin for the first quarter, 2022 was 6.23%.

This means that ExxonMobil made just a little over 6 cents on each dollar of sales on its oil and related products.

If ExxonMobil controlled the entire supply chain from oil exploration, to refining, to wholesale distribution to retail sale (they don't), Exxon Mobil would make about 31 cents on gasoline at $5.00/gallon.

Let's compare that to the taxes that federal and state government's make on the sale of a gallon of gas.

The federal tax is 18 cents a gallon. State taxes vary from Pennsylvania's 58 cents and California's 51 cents a gallon to Alaska's 9 cents and Hawaii's 16 cents.

Most state gas taxes range between 20 and 40 cents a gallon. That means we generally pay anywhere from 38 to 58 cents in taxes on each gallon of gasoline we buy in the United States. In Pennsylvania and California, it is over 70 cents per gallon.

Therefore, government is actually deriving more benefit from each gallon of gasoline sold than ExxonMobil or any other private entity involved in the oil business..

How does that 6.23% net profit margin that ExxonMobil earned in the first quarter, 2022 compare to other high profile companies?

Take a look.

Pfizer                               30.65%

Alphabet (Google)          24.17%

Meta (Facebook)             26.75%

Netflix                             20.30%

Tesla                                17.69%

(All data from Google Finance)

How come Biden is not calling on these companies to reduce their prices to lower their profits?

Of course, Biden also seems to conveniently forget that oil companies lost massive amounts of money in 2020.

The five major oil companies lost a combined $76 billion.

ExxonMobil lost $22.4 billion for the year. 

It is really something to see Biden flail away trying to shift the blame anywhere he can.

He is a man who stated clearly he wanted to put the oil and gas companies out of business.

He stated oil executives should be in jail.

He shut down the Keystone pipeline that would have made it easier to get crude oil to refiners.

His administration has made it more difficult to drill and its regulations have contributed to the shutdown of oil refineries.

He is now surprised that his actions that have reduced supplies has resulted in higher prices and more profits to the oil industry?

The fact is that Biden and his policies have probably done more to increase gasoline prices and oil profits than anyone else.

I suggest that it is time for Mr. Biden to look in the mirror if he wants to blame someone for those high prices.

I have a friend who was asked if he has watched any of the Congressional Select Hearing about January 6th.

I thought his response was spot on.

" I watched five minutes. I don't spend my time watching things that are not fair and balanced."

I was very critical of the actions of the rioters who entered the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. 

I stated that Trump had erred in calling his supporters to Washington, D.C. to rally. He should have foreseen that things could spin out of control.

However, I also stated that most of what transpired that day was solely related to the herd mentality of crowds. Most who participated in going into the Capitol were following the herd rather than consciously participating in a riot much less an insurrection.

In fact, videos show that a number of the "rioters" were waved into the building by Capitol Hill police as if they were visitors right off a tour bus.

My suspicion was that there were instigators in the crowd that lit the fuse and the rest transpired organically. 

For example, look at this surveillance video from the Capitol of the first people to breach the building by breaking the windows. They are all dressed alike in black. This is a video you will not see at the hearing or  thousands of additional hours of video on the events of that day that are counter to the narrative you will hear. Why?

Source: https://twitter.com/RickyBeBack/status/1534572036093120513

I still have seen little on who these people were. Were they Antifa? Government informants? The Proud Boys? Something clearly does not add up.

You can read the blog post I wrote the night of January 6 here.

It is fully within the authority of Congress to investigate what happened, who was responsible and consider what could have been done to prevent it from occurring.

However, any hearings that Congress conducts should have both parties represented and the appointees should be made by the leaders of each delegation. Any evidence presented should also not be one-sided. There should be ample opportunity to hear both side of every issue. Rebuttal evidence and testimony should be part of the proceeding.

None of this is a part of the January 6th hearing.

The hearing seems to have as its purpose nothing more than 1) deflect from the current news that is highly damaging to Joe Biden and the Democrats and 2) damage Donald Trump in something that resembles Impeachment #3 in order to attempt to keep him from the Presidency in 2024.

It has nothing to do in looking for truth or justice. That was imminently clear before the hearings even began.

What would be wrong with a fair and balanced hearing where the totality of the evidence could be heard and assessed?

What would be wrong with having some Republicans who supported President Trump participate and be allowed to offer additional evidence or cross examine witnesses?

What bothers me further about all of this how the January 6th riot is being examined but nothing is allowed to be said or investigated about what transpired with the Black Lives Matter riots of the summer of 2020.

For example, the government alleged that the incursion into the Capitol building caused $1.5 million in damages. The BLM riots caused over $1 billion in damages according to estimates. 

Source: https://www.westernjournal.com/blms-mostly-peaceful-riots-cost-1000x-damage-jan-6-capitol-unrest/

The damages did not stop there. Small businesses destroyed. Lives lost. Police cast as villains rather than heroes.

BLM’s riots devastated small businesses, victimized innocent bystanders and sparked an intense incline in violence against police.

Though the Jan. 6 uprising is inexcusable, the left appears determined to emphasize the damage incurred at the Capitol while neglecting the violence that plagued American streets for months last year.

If we can call out the inexcusable actions of January 6th how is it that nobody seems to be concerned about the riots and anarchy we saw in the summer of 2000?

That seemed to the point of Washington Commanders defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio's comments last week when he asked why the BLM riots were not being investigated in the same way that January 6th was. Del Rio seems to have crossed the line when he referred to January 6th as a "dust up".

That ended with Del Rio being fined $100,000.

Del Rio now clearly understands which city he is living in.

He is not in Jacksonville, FL where he used to be head coach of the Jaguars. 

For that matter, consider the media attention given to the January 6th hearings compared to the attempted assassination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

I have yet to see any evidence that there was one rioter at the Capitol that had any firearm with them.

I would think it would be pretty difficult to conduct an insurrection without a weapon.

However, a person arrested outside of Kavanaugh's house, Nicholas Roske, had flown from California to Washington with the specific intent to murder the justice.

Roske confessed to police that he intended to kill Kavanaugh because he was angry about the surprise leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion that suggested a reversal of Roe v. Wade, and because he “believed that the Justice he intended to kill would side with Second Amendment decisions that would loosen gun control laws,” according to an FBI affidavit.

“An inventory search of the seized suitcase and backpack revealed a black tactical chest rig and tactical knife, a Glock 17 with two magazines and ammunition, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, screwdriver, nail punch, crow bar, pistol light, duct tape, hiking boots with padding on the outside of the soles, and other items,” according to the criminal complaint. The padded boots would have helped Roske enter and move through the Kavanaugh home quietly.

I don't want to think about the upheaval and foment that would be caused in this country if such an act did take place.

However, The New York Times buried the Kavanaugh story on page A20 while it gave prominent billing to the "Attack on Democracy" and the January 6th hearing on its front page last Thursday.

How could the attempted assassination of a Supreme Court justice not also be considered an act of insurrection and an attack on democracy?

The same was true of all of the Sunday mainstream media news shows on CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC

Source: https://regionalmedia.live/kavanaugh-assassination-attempt-ignored-by-sunday-shows/

Source: https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1536727472015818757

Source: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/14/texas-special-election-tx-34-mayra-flores-dan-sanchez/

How high will inflation go?

Last month saw an 8.6% year over year increase in the Consumer Price Index.

It is the highest we have seen in over 40 years.

Here is a sampling of some of the items in the index.

Credit: https://twitter.com/byHeatherLong/status/1535245905045209090

You might notice that the shelter component (rent above) is only showing a +5.2% increase over the last year.

How can this be when home prices are +20.6% and rents are +15.4% over the last year?

The CPI shelter number is 5.2% while actual costs are at least three times higher due to the fact that the  calculation for shelter in the CPI is only done semi-annually and totally ignores the actual cost of housing. It is based solely on a survey of what home owners say they would be willing to rent their house for as well as a survey of what renters say they are paying.

However, since that survey question is only asked twice per year it is totally inadequate to reflect actual costs in a period where prices are increasing quickly.

Considering the fact that shelter is the largest component in the index (33% of the total) it is clear that actual inflation is much higher than what is being reported right now.

However, if the shelter number catches up we will undoubtedly see higher inflation pressures based solely on that number even if some of the other components begin to stabilize over time.

If CPI was being calculated the same way it was in 1981 we would now be seeing an inflation number of just over 17% according to an economist who calculates the index using the prior methodology.

Source: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

At some point, we should see some moderation in the index if for no other reason than the base index gets higher with each succeeding month,.

At some point the CPI number will come down. That doesn't mean current prices are going to go down.

If gas prices are the same next year that would be a 0% increase in the CPI index. Keep in mind the CPI is only measuring price changes over the last year. The base the CPI is being measured against is getting larger every month for the inflation that started just over a year ago.

Looking at the data I would expect inflation to remain at least 8% through September assuming there is not a total meltdown of the economy that will drastically cut demand pressures. 

Last October is when inflation really starting taking off which is going to provide higher base numbers in the CPI calculation for 2022.

Source: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf

I am also assuming that the increases in shelter costs are going to start working into the numbers over the next several months.

It is not out of the question that the economy could roll over into a recession in the next few months.

Consumer sentiment has not been this low since 1952 when the University of Michigan first started tracking it. It should not be lost that there were a lot of times in those 70 years when things looked very bleak. It says something when consumer sentiment is at this level right now.

A big reason for the pessimism is that wage earners are losing ground every month due to high inflation.

We have now seen 14 consecutive months of negative real wage growth.

Nominal wages have been increasing (+11.9% since February, 2020) but prices have increased more.

At the same time in 1981, the last time we saw this level of inflation, the Fed Funds rate was over 13%. Today it is still below 1%.

How much higher will interest rates have to go to bring down inflation and what will it do to the economy, stock market values and home prices?

In the meantime, Joe Biden and the Democrats seem to be incapable of understanding how much of the inflation we are seeing now can be traced directly to their attacks on the U.S. energy sector and their contempt for the use of fossil fuels.

Energy is the most important factor in economic growth. Energy makes the world economy go. We need it for anything we want to do. It needs to be available and it needs to be affordable. The economy does not work without energy. The consumer cannot spend on other things in the economy if they are spending excessive amounts on energy. If the consumer doesn't spend, the economy does not grow. If the economy does not grow, eventually more and more people go without jobs.

Energy costs get baked into everything in the economy. The fuel the farmer uses to plow his fields. The energy used to dry the crops. The fuel needed to transport the grain. The energy necessary to power the bakery that makes the break. The fuel for the truck to get bread to the market. 

When those costs go up employers need to increase wages of their employees due to the higher prices. This in turn turns into a cost/push inflation cycle that pushes prices higher and higher.

Joe Biden is now complaining that the oil companies are making too much money and they need to drill more.

President Joe Biden slammed Exxon Mobil on Friday for what he described as the oil giant’s greedy reluctance to produce more petroleum, just hours after U.S. economists said inflation in May rose at levels not seen since the early 1980s.

However, on the campaign trail he stated that oil executives should be put in jail for drilling for oil.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7837265/We-jail-Biden-wants-prosecute-fossil-fuel-executives-environment-damage.html

Let's also not forget these gems from Biden when he was running for President.

Credit: https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1535667434912464897

Perhaps there is a reason that oil companies are not drilling for more oil?

Does Biden not understand that his policies are the reason that all the oil that ExxonMobil and others already have has become much more valuable and could be sold for much higher prices?

The only blessing in this is that the public at large has been provided a glimpse of what happens to the world when fossil fuels are abandoned  on a "promise" of a green economy.

Things get very expensive and the outlook for everybody gets very bleak in a short period of time when energy costs increase.

Green economics schemes that are done to "save the planet" will inevitably destroy the economy in the process. The only way to avoid that result is if the cost of the new energy inputs are more affordable than fossil fuels.

I have great confidence that given free markets economies and human ingenuity we will find better sources of energy to power our lives. This has been proven time and time again over the course of human history.

However, we have never voluntarily abandoned something that is accessible and affordable for something that is speculative and expensive.

We are in the process of learning a hard lesson

Let's hope that enough people understand it to do something about it.

If not, we have not begun to see where this ends.

Host Richard Dawson made the following phrase famous on the TV game show "Family Feud".

"Survey Says".

Dawson would utter those words before seeing how well the family contestants on the tv show were able to guess the survey responses to various questions.

Could the family contestants correctly gauge the attitudes of a wider population group beyond their family circle and individual experiences?

I always enjoy looking at survey and poll data.

Looking at the data does not tell me if the people in the survey know the right answers.

Their conclusions could be absolutely wrong.

However, it does reveal what is going on in their heads.

Over the last week or so I have come across several interesting surveys.

You can take what you will from the surveys but I would suggest that in a broad sense this indicates to me that there is deep concern across the body politic in the nation right now.

For example, a recent Rasmussen survey found that 55% of American adults believe it is likely that the United States will enter a 1930's-like depression in the next several years.

This is the breakdown of the survey by demographic group. Notice that 44% of Democrats share that view, women are more concerned than men and Hispanics are more concerned than Whites.

That same survey asked people whether today's children would be better off than their parents.

An astounding 56% answered NO. Only 20% said YES.

These answers in itself are major warning signs to me on where the economy is headed in the near term.

Economic growth is dependent in large part on the optimism of people about the future. People have to be optimistic in order to invest, take risks in opening new businesses and the like.

Lack of confidence and fear of the future are the worst things you can have from the public if you want to promote economic growth.

In the RealClearPolitics.com poll average, 71% say the country is on the wrong track. That is up over 20 points in the last year.

The negative outlook of people in these surveys could effectively become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That is a major reason why Franklin Delano Roosevelt said this in his first inaugural address in 1933.

All of this pessimism does not bode well for Joe Biden or the Democrats right now.

Biden's approval rating hovers around 40%.

How bad is that?

Biden is running about 10 points below where Trump was at the same time in his administration and Trump was battling the false Russian collusion narrative and an adversarial media every day.

Note that Trump's approval was increasing in his second year while Biden's has been declining.

Source: https://twitter.com/mirandadevine/status/1533956072288952320/photo/1

To make matters worst for Biden, 49% of voters strongly disapprove of his performance. Only 20% strongly approve. That translates to a -29% net score.

Source: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/prez_track_jun07

By contrast, I thought it was interesting that Donald Trump averaged a 33% strongly approve score during his entire term. That was even higher than Obama's average. This would seem to show there is at least one-third of the country that are committed conservatives and not more than 20%who are full-fledged liberals.

Rasmussen's most recent generic Congressional Ballot poll has Republicans favored by 48%-40%. 

This poll would normally be expected to provide a couple points advantage to Democrats due to their registration advantage nationally. 

What are voters most concerned about leading up to the midterm elections according to Rasmussen?

Source: https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1534248911401107456/photo/1

I would not expect many of you to be surprised by this list.

These are all things I hear often when I talk to people I know.

However, you might notice that these are not issues you hear as much about on the evening news.

They are also issues that Democrats seem reluctant to talk about.

Below is a list of issues you are more likely to hear legacy media and Democrats talking about right now

Rasmussen also surveyed voters to gauge their concerns about these issues.

Do you notice anything between the two lists?

There is not one issue on the list that legacy media and the Democrats want to talk about that rises to the level of concern that voters have on the first list.

You might say there is a major DISCONNECT between what voters say they are most concerned about and what the legacy media and Democrats want them to be concerned about.

Of course, what a survey says and how people will actually vote can be two different things.

We will see how all of this sorts out in November.

However, it has all the makings of a FAMILY FEUD

The surveys say right now that most of the major concerns of the American people are not being taken seriously enough by the media and political elites.

I do know one thing.

When the American people vote their concerns, they win. 

In our system, they have all the power. The problem is that most people don't believe it.

Perhaps the time is coming for the people to send a message to the politicians and media elites so that EVERYONE believes it.

Covid Vaccines for Children

The FDA is reported to be close to allowing the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines to be administered to children under age 5 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

The Pfizer vaccines were granted EUA status for 5-11 year olds last October. Last month emergency use authorization was given for booster shots for these children.

This slide was in the presentation where discussions took place on whether the EUA should be extended for younger children and for the use of booster shots.

Credit: https://twitter.com/covid_clarity/status/1532024672677638144/photo/1

5-11 year old kids 37x more likely to die in an accident than from Covid.

10x more likely to be the victim of a homicide.

3x more likely to die from a suicide and these are elementary age children.

The Covid vaccines are necessary for children because this is an EMERGENCY?

Hmmmm.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Joe Biden announced in November that he was going to take oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to bring the price of gasoline down.

All Biden has done is further weakened our national security.

It might as well be called a "Strategic Political Reserve" based on how Biden is using it.

Credit: https://twitter.com/TaviCosta/status/1532395442444673025/photo/1

The price of oil was $75.50/barrel when Biden started raiding the SPR for political reasons.

It is now over $120/barrel.

The SPR was intended to be used when there were supply disruptions when oil could literally not be obtained at any price due to supply cutoffs.

The SPR now has smaller reserves that at any time in the last 30 years.

What happens if a hurricane disrupts supplies in the Gulf Coast states?

What if Saudi Arabia refused to ship us any oil at all?

President Trump wanted to fill the SPR to the brim when oil prices were below $30/barrel. He was rebuffed by Congress.

Biden says he will replenish the SPR.

At what price will that be?

What price will the America people pay if the oil runs out and there is no reserve left?

Hmmm.

American Income Levels By Age

Below are two interesting charts that show the % of earners who make more than $50K and $100K by age.

The first chart shows the $50K income level.

The biggest income gains are made by people between age 30 and 35.

At age 35 the income trajectory of most people levels off. Your relative position is not likely to change a lot from that point forward based on this data.

Source: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/american-income-levels-by-age-group/

The second chart shows the $100K level.

Interestingly, the only ages where more than 20% of those are making six figures is in those over age 65.

I guess seniority has its advantages if you can hang on and continue to work that long.

Source: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/american-income-levels-by-age-group/

Hmmm.

This is Green?

We hear a lot these day about the need to be GREEN.

We are supposed to  think about SUSTAINABILITY in all that we do.

This includes using alternative energy sources (wind, solar etc) and electric vehicles.

This is what we supposedly should we doing in order to save our planet.

However, I thought this was an interesting chart that compares the earth minerals required in an electric car vs. a conventional vehicle and the minerals used in various forms of power generation.

This is green?

Hmmm.

eBay vs. Amazon

There has been a lot of losses on the NASDAQ this year which is home to many stocks that are considered to be economic disruptors.

These stocks often get ahead of themselves as investors are more excited with the story than the company is able to ultimately fulfill those dreams with revenues and profits.

I am reminded of the stock of RCA when radio was just finding its way into every American living room.

RCA hit a high just before the crash of 1929 and it took well over 30 years for it to again reach that stock price.  In the meantime, RCA had also moved into televisions.

The internet/e-commerce boom of 1998-1999 was similar to what we saw in the late 1920's.

For example, consider this Business Week cover from 1999 asking which was the better investment---eBay or Amazon?

Credit: https://twitter.com/MacroAlf/status/1533128351476506626

At that time eBay had a higher market cap than Amazon.

That was also true in 2001 after the internet bubble popped in 2000.

eBay had a market cap of $13 billion in January, 2001. Amazon was valued at $6 billion.

Investors viewed eBay with the brighter prospects long term.

What about the next 20 years?

eBay now has a market cap of $26 billion but it is actually no higher than it was in 1999.

On the other hand, Amazon has grown from a company worth $6 billon in 2001 to one now valued at over $1 trillion.

Investors 20 years ago were too optimistic about the prospects of eBay and vastly undervalued the potential of Amazon.

The question now is which one of those NASDAQ stocks that have been hit hard in 2022 will be the Amazon of the next 20 years?

There must be a pony in there somewhere? *

Hmmm.

* Taken from one of Ronald Reagan's favorite stories.

Worried that the boys had developed extreme personalities -- one was a total pessimist, the other a total optimist -- their parents took them to a psychiatrist

First the psychiatrist treated the pessimist. Trying to brighten his outlook, the psychiatrist took him to a room piled to the ceiling with brand-new toys. But instead of yelping with delight, the little boy burst into tears. "What's the matter?" the psychiatrist asked, baffled. "Don't you want to play with any of the toys?" "Yes," the little boy bawled, "but if I did I'd only break them."

Next the psychiatrist treated the optimist. Trying to dampen his out look, the psychiatrist took him to a room piled to the ceiling with horse manure. But instead of wrinkling his nose in disgust, the optimist emitted just the yelp of delight the psychiatrist had been hoping to hear from his brother, the pessimist. Then he clambered to the top of the pile, dropped to his knees, and began gleefully digging out scoop after scoop with his bare hands. "What do you think you're doing?" the psychiatrist asked, just as baffled by the optimist as he had been by the pessimist. "With all this manure," the little boy replied, beaming, "there must be a pony in here somewhere!"

 When I see stories like this I can't help but ask the question, "Can California Survive?"

Not only did one lifeguard top $500,000 in pay but 98 other lifeguards made at least $200,000.

An investigation by OpenTheBooks.com discovered that LA's highest-paid ocean lifeguard, a captain named Daniel Douglas, raked in a total of $510,283 in total compensation last year, nearly half of which – $246,060 – was from overtime pay. Douglas' base salary is $150,054, and he brought in another $28,661 in "other pay" and $85,508 in benefits to surpass the half-million-dollar mark.

Douglas is not the only high-earning lifeguard on the county's payroll. The No. 2 earner in 2021 was lifeguard chief Fernando Boiteux, who made $463,517, followed by section chief Kenichi Ballew-Haskett at $409,414. All told, 98 LA lifeguards made at least $200,000 last year, and OpenTheBooks.com founder Adam Andrzejewski wrote in a substack post explaining the breakdown that "it's time we put Baywatch on pay watch."

The story indicates that there are just 166 full-time lifeguards that are supplemented by 600 seasonal lifeguards. Therefore, that means the median pay for a full-time lifeguard in LA is over $200,000.

Nice work if you can get it.

Of course, someone is paying the bill and that someone is the taxpayer.

California has the highest marginal state income tax rate in the nation at 13.3%. That applies to individual incomes exceeding $1 million.

However, under California's graduated rates, someone making just $61,214 is subject to a 9.3% income tax rate.

As the Tax Foundation graphic shows, that 9.3% rate is much higher than the top tax rate in most states.

Source: https://taxfoundation.org/state-income-tax-rates-2022/

California also has the highest state sales tax at 7.25%. Local sales taxes are typically added on to this up to an additional 3.00%.

The total sales tax in the city of Los Angeles is 9.5%. In Long Beach and Pasadena it is 10.25%.

Californians also pay the highest gasoline taxes in the nation---68.15 cents per gallon.

Property taxes are below the national average (thanks to Proposition 13 passed by the voters in 1978) in California where annual taxes average about .8% of the property value. However, when you take into account California's high median house values, property taxes paid at that median value actually rank in the top ten.

California is a state with over 40 million residents.

However, the top 0.5% of income tax filers by income are shouldering 40% of the state's income tax collections. That is a group of less than 100,000 taxpayers.

These taxpayers are principally tied to Silicon Valley. A large share of their income is not tied to salaries and wages but to income from stock options, dividends and capital gains on stock sales.

It doesn't take a genius to see that funding a large portion of state government and supporting 40 million people, while relying on a small group of people and a continuing stock market boom to pay the bills, is not a strategy likely to endure for the long term.

First, at what point do those paying the bills pack up and leave the state?

Exhibit one is Elon Musk who headed to Texas with Tesla and his other ventures.

That is in addition to other companies who have announced they are leaving California, or have already left, including Hewlett Packard, Oracle, Uber, Airbnb, Salesforce, Yelp, Twitter, and Pinterest.

Second, what happens if those IPO's, stock options and large stock gains go away with stock market losses?

In the early days of the pandemic, when the stock market was in freefall, California projected it was facing a $54 billion deficit after having a $21 billion surplus the year before.

Massive federal assistance and the stock market rebound saved California from economic devastation two years ago and the state projects it will end fiscal 2022 with $41 billion in higher revenues than projected in the original annual budget.

Of course, what does government do when they get more money?

They spend even more more money under the assumption that the good times will last forever.

The chart below shows spending in the California budget in REAL DOLLARS. adjusted for inflation.

Note that spending has almost DOUBLED in the last decade after taking account of inflation.

The last couple of years make it look like an Elon Musk SpaceX rocket taking off.

All of this is still not enough for the Democrat legislators in California who have introduced bills to increase the top tax rate to 16.8% and also implement a wealth tax on those with household net worths that are above $50 million.

What happens if more of those rich taxpayers leave the state and the stock market goes down rather than up?

Governor Gavin Newsom has recently been crowing about his state's budget surplus. He seems to particularly enjoy needling Texas and Florida (no state income states) and their "right-wing" policies in pointing out how a "progressive" state like California can show such impressive budget results.

However, Texas and Florida are also  enjoying record budget surpluses for the current fiscal year.

Source: https://www.click2houston.com/news/investigates/2022/05/20/what-to-do-with-texas-24-billion-budget-surplus/

Florida will also end the year with a budget surplus of over $20 billion.

Source: https://www.flgov.com/2022/05/20/governor-ron-desantis-announces-record-budget-surplus-as-floridas-economy-continues-to-outperform-the-nation/

Both states have no income tax and are not dependent on a relatively few wealthy taxpayers and the stock market as California is.

I am fairly certain the lifeguards in Texas and California are also not being paid over $200,000 per year.

Can California survive the government structure the people have put in office?

Make no mistake this could not occur without votes for the representatives who have allowed all of this to take place in what once was called "The Golden State".

The wagon is getting heavier and heavier in California. More people are in the wagon and fewer and fewer are pulling it.

How does this end well?

Basic common sense says it doesn't.

There is a lot of angst lately about the direction of the stock and bond markets.

Huge losses have been sustained across both categories.

U.S.Treasury bonds have traditionally been considered a safe haven for investment portfolios.

Not this year.

Long treasury bonds have declined almost 13% since January 1.

The total bond market in the United States (treasuries, corporates, high yields, state and local, etc) was about $47 trillion in 2021. Bond losses in total are probably over $5 trillion.

I saw one report in Barron's that put U.S. stock losses alone this year at over $10 trillion.

The NASDAQ composite index is officially in bear market territory having declined over 20% year to date.

The S&P 500 index is down over 13% for the year.

Losses for the owners of Bitcoin have been over $1 trillion.

It has been a horrendous year to be an investor.

However, Barron's also reported that in the previous two years household net worth in the U.S. ballooned by $34 trillion fueled by government Covid aid and the low interest and money printing policies of the Federal Reserve.

When you consider that U.S. GDP is $24 trillion, the fact is that U.S. consumers were handed almost two years of income in increased values of their homes, their 401(k) accounts and stock and bond portfolios between April, 2020 and the beginning of this year.

This might also give you some idea of where inflation is coming from today.

It is also worth keeping in mind that the last 40 years have provided the best investment environment in which to build wealth that has ever been available in the history of investing.

In those four decades all someone had to do was save and invest and it was almost impossible not to become wealthy.

$1,000 invested in the S&P 500 on June 1, 1982 would be worth over $36,000 today without taking account of dividends.

$1,000 invested in the NASDAQ composite over the same period would have grown to more than $60,000.

You could have even accumulated almost $30,000 with $1,000 invested in long-term treasury bonds over the last 40 years.

The secular decline in interest rates over the last 40 years effectively put the winds at the backs of anyone who had money to invest.

This chart graphically shows that decline in interest rates over those 40 years.

The recent increase in interest rates looks like a small blip when viewed in historical context.

Therefore, while what we have experienced this year feels bad, the reality is that for most investors it is merely a small setback compared to prior gains.

However, what lies ahead?

If interest rates continue to climb, how much will that headwind affect other asset classes?

It can't be good for most home values since increased mortgage rates limit how much a buyer can pay for a home unless incomes increase to keep up with higher rates.

That has not been the case for a long time.

Higher yields also make bonds more attractive relative to stocks.

I came across the following chart by Nick Maggiulli that shows a downward slant similar to the interest rate chart above.

However, this is a graph of the Dow Jones average from September, 1929 to July, 1932 in which the index fell almost 90%.

Credit: https://ofdollarsanddata.com/rallies-to-the-bottom/

As you can see, there were a number of major rallies along the way when investors thought the bear market was over during the early stages of the Great Depression.

Each brought false hope.

Similar volatility was seen in the 2000-2003 period where we saw a number of 20%+ rallies that turned out to be head fakes as the overall trend headed downward.

What do I make of all of this?

If you look at the big picture, the losses sustained thus far are very small in comparison to the gains that came before.

In addition, as long as the Federal Reserve is tightening and interest rates are rising, stocks, bond and house values are going to be fighting a significant headwind.

The risks on the downside appear far greater than any potential upside---by a large margin.

Expect a lot of volatility in the stock market. There will be some significant down days in the market but we should also see some big rallies.

However, the major trends are what you need to keep your eyes on.

On inflation.

On what the Fed is doing.

What is happening with interest rates.

Joe Biden announced on Tuesday that he has a three-point plan to fight inflation.

The first point he made was that he was not going to interfere with the Federal Reserve which has primary responsibility to control inflation. 

Of course, it was Biden and the Federal Reserve who were telling us last year at this time that we should expect any inflation to be merely "transitory".

That alone does not inspire a lot of confidence about any "plans" they have to bring down inflation.

In addition, right after I saw Biden's plan where he said he was not going to interfere with the Fed I saw this.

Biden says he is not going to meddle with the Fed but the first thing he does is meet with the Federal Reserve Chairman?

What are Biden's other two priorities to fight inflation?

Working to reduce prices, especially gas prices. However, Biden's policies have largely caused the increase in gas prices.

In fact, last week Biden was praising high gas prices as an "incredible transition" to allow the world to move away from fossil fuels.

Source: https://nypost.com/2022/05/23/biden-praises-gas-prices-as-part-of-incredible-transition/

Biden also said he is going to reduce the federal deficit.

No, he said nothing about reducing federal spending. That would be too logical if you wanted to curb deficit spending.

Biden is going to do it with "common sense reforms to the tax code". In other words, let's raise more taxes.

When a ship is facing headwinds and high seas you want a steady hand at the controls.

Everything points to the fact that we should expect some very choppy seas ahead.

A steady hand?

Let's hope there are enough life preservers on board.

As reported deaths from Covid-19 have surpassed 1 million in the United States there have been some who have suggested that there should be a national memorial day in remembrance of the victims.

Source: https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2022/should-we-have-a-national-memorial-day-for-1-million-covid-19-deaths/

I have lost at least three people I knew well to Covid. All the deaths are a cause for immense sadness. However, to equate these deaths with the sacrifices that are remembered of those who died in service of our country is misguided.

There is simply no equivalence. It is not even close. In my view, establishing a memorial day for Covid victims (or even erecting a memorial in Washington, D.C.) would diminish the significance of those who have given the ultimate sacrifice is misguided.

You have to ask as well if we believe that a Covid Memorial is warranted how come no memorial was ever considered for all of the victims of the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918/19?

It is estimated there were 675,00 deaths from the Spanish flu in the United States.

Covid looks worse at first blush but it is important to put that number in context.

The population of the United States in the 1920 census was less than one-third of what it is today.

The Spanish flu pandemic claimed twice as many deaths when measured as a percent of the population as Covid has.

That pandemic was also much more costly to the society at large as deaths were primarily concentrated in younger ages. 

You can see from this chart that the Spanish flu was particularly fatal for those under age 40. In fact, less than 1% of deaths from the Spanish flu were in those over age 65.

Distribution of Deaths by Age for Spanish flu, Ages 15-45 Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3734171/

Covid, by contrast, has largely targeted older ages. 75% of Covid deaths have been in those over age 65. Over half of the deaths have been 75 years or older.

A young life lost is not just a loss of life it is an unfulfilled life of potential that is also lost forever. It could truly be said that it is an incalculable loss. It also carries a high economic cost to society. Who knows what might have been produced or invented by this young talent over their lifetimes?

I have written in the past how high that cost is as shown in this chart by Professor Kevin Murphy of the University of Chicago that shows the value of longevity gains in the economy since 1900.

Since the Covid pandemic began I have always thought it interesting that I never heard my grandparents speak of the Spanish flu pandemic one time even though they were at an age (late teens, early 20's) that they were prime targets of the virus. They also must have had friends who succumbed to the virus. On the other hand, they spoke often of World War I and World War II. My grandfather served in the Army in the World War I.

That has led me to wonder exactly what level of importance we will ascribe to Covid in hindsight,

My guess is that there will be much more made of our public health response to the virus (lockdowns, school closures, masks, vaccine mandates), and how it affected our lives, than the actual virus itself.

Credit: https://twitter.com/COVIDData3/status/1522244667953274880/photo/1

It is difficult to write about the mass school shooting in Uvalde, Texas this week.

There is nothing more horrific than to see 19 elementary children murdered in cold blood along with two teachers.

There is clearly something wrong somewhere.

The question is what is it?

I typically do not like to write or comment on these incidents right after they occur as the early reports are so often inaccurate.

However, Democrats are quick to decide the fault lies with guns.

Left unanswered is how it is that we lived for decades upon decades in this country where people did not march into schools, grocery stores, malls or churches and start shooting. 

The United States has always had rifles and other guns. Why didn't we have school shootings when I was growing up? Or even when my own children were going to school? What we are seeing is a relatively recent development.

What has changed? Is it the guns or something else?

In a blog shortly after Sandy Hook and Aurora that I wrote almost ten years ago, I asked the following question.

"Are we looking at the right target?"

It is easy to point the finger at guns but it seems there is a bigger issue.

Could it have something to do with culture?

Broken families? Fatherless homes? Violence in television and movies? Video games? The internet? Poor mental health screening and services? Less school discipline? Less religious teaching? Too much political correctness?

When we hear about these shootings the profile of the murderous assailant inevitably ends up being similar to what we are finding out about the Uvalde shooter. 

18-25 year old male.

Disaffected and disconnected from society.

Problems with his family.

Drug use.

These shooters all suffer from profound mental illness.

Sadly, I have written about this too many times before in these pages.

Sandy Hook.

Aurora.

Parkland.

Dayton.

What is even more troubling about this shooting are the reports that the shooter was outside of the school for 12 minutes firing shots before he entered the building.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/uvalde-residents-voice-frustration-over-shooting-response-11653588161

Local residents voiced anger Thursday about the time it took to end the mass shooting at an elementary school here, as police laid out a fresh timeline that showed the gunman entered the building unobstructed after lingering outside for 12 minutes firing shots.

Similar to Parkland, we are also now hearing that police were at the scene but did not go into the building because they deemed it too dangerous without more weaponry and resources. It was at least an hour before the shooter was taken down.

What?

It was too dangerous? The police at the scene needed to wait for a tactical weapons team?

How do you explain that to the families of the defenseless children?

Many Republicans suggest the answer is to have an armed security person at each school and harden the access to schools.

However, what good would that have done in Uvalde?

This guy was firing shots outside of the school for 12 minutes and they still couldn't keep him out?

A whole battalion of police were there but it was too dangerous to go in after him? How would a single "School Resource Officer" do any better?

Perhaps there are answers to these questions but all of this suggests that there are no SIMPLE answers.

Let's hope we get better answers over time.

In the meantime, I should repeat a few facts that I have before that always seem to be forgotten in these tragedies as we inevitably hear these talking points.

Why do these mass shootings only occur in the United States?

I have cited statistics in the past that this is simply not true.

This is a quote from a study done by the Crime Prevention Research Center that was published in 2020 that indicates that the United States is far down the list insofar as mass shootings are concerned.

The U.S. is well below the world average in terms of the number of mass public shootings, and the global increase over time has been much bigger than for the United States.

Over the 20 years from 1998 to 2017, our list contains 2,772 attacks and at least 5,764 shooters outside the United States and 62 attacks and 66 shooters within our country. By our count, the US makes up less than 1.13% of the mass public shooters, 1.77% of their murders, and 2.19% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average. Out of the 101 countries where we have identified mass public shootings occurring, the United States ranks 66th in the per capita frequency of these attacks and 56th in the murder rate.

We need to ban the type of rifles used in this shooting.

The fact is that in 2020 (the most recent year data is available) there were only 455 homicides where a rifle was used. This includes any so-called "assault" rifles and any victims of mass shootings.

Handguns were used 8,029 times.

Knives 1,739 times.

Hands, fists were used 662 times.

Homicides by Murder Weapon in U.S. 2020 Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

It is true that it harder to create the mayhem we saw in Uvalde with a handgun but when the perpetrator has an hour alone with a room full of small children he could have used any weapon and gotten the same horrible result.

In fact, reports are that the Uvalde shooter also took a handgun into the classroom with a rifle.

We should raise the age that someone can buy a firearm from 18 to 21.

In my view, there is merit to this suggestion. There is little question that the judgment and maturity of an 18 year old is lacking compared to someone older.

We already ban the purchase of alcohol and cigarettes for those under age 21.

We used to limit voting to only those age 21 and older for the same reason. This was the case even though those 18 years olds became independent much earlier in the past than they do today. The voting age was 21 in the Civil War, World War I, World II and the Korean War.

However, the age limit was reduced from 21 to 18 principally based on the argument that if someone could serve their country in the military they should be able to vote. It should be remembered that this change occurred during the Vietnam War when the draft was in place.

We now have a volunteer military. No one is being forced to serve. The argument to lower the voting age does not have the same weight it once did especially when you consider the ages for alcohol and cigarettes were raised.

It seems to me that if the age limit to purchase a firearm is increased because of concerns about judgment and maturity the same question should be asked about the right to vote.

It would be interesting to see what the reaction would be if Republicans stated they would be willing to increase the age to purchase a firearm to 21 if the Democrats would agree to raise the voting age to 21.

We might find out how serious Democrats really are about all of this.

Of course, the U,S. Constitution's 26th Amendment guarantees the right to vote for those 18 years and older in federal elections. This raises the question as to why the 2nd Amendment would not also protect the rights of an 18 year old to bear arms?

As I stated, there are no easy answers.

What is clear is that there is something terribly wrong in our society that this nightmare has played out over and over.

Playing politics as Beto O'Rourke, Democrat nominee for Governor in Texas, did while disrupting a press conference by Governor Greg Abbott on the shooting and investigation before the children have even been  put to rest is not helping solve the problem.

We need to stop politicizing these events and start dealing with the uncomfortable fact that we have serious human and societal problems that underly these monstrous acts.

The root of this problem is much deeper and more complex than any law is able to cure.

Are you "woke"?

This is how the Merrian-Webster defines the word that is increasingly used in our society today.

You are woke if you believe that the Black Lives Matter organization cares more about racial injustice than it does about creating promoting a socialist agenda, racial division and raising money.

You are woke if you believe that the percentage of mixed race marriages in advertising today is in any way representative of the real world.

You are woke if you believe birthing people have babies rather than women.

You are woke if you believe that millions of people were assigned a gender at birth that is contrary to their biological DNA.

You are woke if you believe it is perfectly fine for biological males to compete with females in athletic competitions due to their "identity".

If you are not woke you are cancelled, censored or called out as racist, homophobic, misogynistic or a fascist.

However, I am seeing a few things recently that the tide may be starting to turn a bit.

More people are starting to look like they are "awake" to reality rather than "woke".

They understand the actual facts on some of the issues that surround the "woke" movement.

For example, net support for Black Lives Matter among voters has dropped by 25 points over the last two years.

More voters now oppose BLM than support it.

Part of this seems to be due to reports that BLM secretly bought a $6 million mansion in Los Angeles and other big spending items by its co-founders to relatives and the like.

Source: https://nypost.com/2022/04/04/black-lives-matter-used-donations-to-buy-6-million-southern-california-home-report/

This was after BLM's co-founder resigned last May after reports she had purchased three homes in Atlanta and another one in LA.

This was in addition to a number of other insider payouts involving the co-founders of BLM as reported by The New York Post.

The adage “wherever there is power, greed and money, there is corruption,” seems to ring true for Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors.

As The Post reported last week, Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation tax documents filed (years late) with the IRS show Cullors used BLM funds to pay her graffiti-artist brother a whopping $840,000 for “security” services to the nonprofit and $970,000 to a company owned by her child’s father for “creative services.” Nepotism much?

Oh, and the foundation’s biggest single payout, over $2.1 million, went to a consulting firm owned by another of its current board members, Shalomyah Bowers.

Many have also concluded that the primary goal of Black Lives Matter--to defund the police---was not a very good idea.

For example, the Council on Criminal Justice reported that homicides in 22 major U.S. cities in 2021 were up 44% over 2019 levels.

A record number of homicides occurred in 12 cities. A number of these cities were the focus of major BLM protests to defund the police.

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/US/12-major-us-cities-top-annual-homicide-records/story?id=81466453

Black shooting victims are up 144% and Black murder victims are up 81% since 2019.

When you are awake and not woke you tend to come face to face with facts and reality.

One of the more interesting examples of someone becoming "awake" is noted liberal personality Bill Maher.

He did a monologue last week asking what is going on with LGBTQ? (Use this link if you can't open the video below in your browser)

Maher asks a lot of serious questions but he is also does it with a great deal of  humor.

The video is aboutr nine minutes long. It is well worth watching.

Maher cited this polling data that tracks the percentage of Americans who self-identify as LGBTQ.

He said that the percentage seems to be doubling every generation.

This is science?

He also joked that at this rate everyone will be gay or trans by 2056.

Maher also asked what is going on with all the "trans" issues with children?

If this is "science" why do we see this trend at much higher rates in California than we do in Ohio?

Is there a lot of suppression of LGBTQ in Ohio or is there social contagion in California?

For example, consider these children of various Hollywood celebrities.

Is there something in the water that makes these children want to dress like this?

Is this science or a way to show you are woke?

Source: https://twitter.com/Peter_L_Abram/status/1513701073625645060

Charlize Theron actually adopted two sons who both now identify as girls. 

This person on Twitter asks what are the odds?

Awake or woke?

Someone should also check the water in Seattle.

A high school in Seattle reports that 80% of its students identify as LGBTQ+, nonbinary and transgender.

80%!!!!

If you look at the mission statement of Nova High School there might be a hint that this has not resulted from science or water. There is something else going on.

This is what it means to be woke.

Are you awake yet?

I will conclude with one more tweet that puts this into a little better perspective.

It is a lesson that the world is not always as we want it to be.

We may be woke but there are a lot of people in this world that have no idea what that is.

There is a raw reality in the world that many cannot comprehend in the sheltered existence that so many who have been raised in the United States of America.

It is hard to survive in that world be being woke when you need to be awake.

I could not help but laugh at this tweet.

Awake indeed.

How do Covid cases compare now to the same time last year?

In most places in the United States things seem pretty normal.

You don't hear much about Covid cases on the news.

People are attending sporting events, concerts and congregating at bars and restaurants.

You see some masks when you go out but in most parts of the country they are pretty rare.

The exceptions might be in heavily blue voting areas such as San Francisco.

For example, San Francisco still has a mask mandate requirement for anyone using public transportation.

How much have Covid cases fallen compared to last year?

The fact is that Covid cases are actually four times higher in the United States right now than they were at the same time last year!

New Reported Cases in the U.S. 7-day average Source: The New York Times

Cases this year are also very likely understated compared to last year since home test kits are much more plentiful and a lot of cases never get recorded in the official totals.

It is pretty incredible that these are the facts and yet it gets almost no news.

It also does not provide much to support the efficacy of the vaccines.

I know many will look at the data and suggest that the reason cases are much higher this year is that mask mandates and Covid restrictions were lifted.

However, wasn't the argument being made last year that the vaccines would allow us to return to life as normal?

We have also seen revisionist history over the last year. It was at this time last year that the argument was being made that if you were vaccinated you would be protected from illness and would not spread the disease.

This was stated by both the CDC Director and Joe Biden last Spring and Summer.

We were also told last summer that it had become a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

Eventually the narrative changed to "nobody ever said the vaccines were going to protect you from getting sick but they would prevent severe illness and death".

Do you remember?

It is true that reported deaths nationally are about half of what they were at this time last year.

This might be due to the vaccines.

This could also be due to the fact that the Omicron variant that is prevalent today is much less virulent than what we were seeing last year.

It is also unclear how much of this reduction is due to the fact that a number of states have changed the definition of what is a Covid death. Deaths must be "from" Covid rather than merely be "with" Covid.

Massachusetts is one such state.

Source: https://turnto10.com/news/local/massachusetts-department-public-health-change-diagnosis-redefines-covid-19-death-after-significant-overcount

Let's take a closer look at what is going on in Massachusetts since it is a very blue state with one of the highest vaccination rates in the country.

What about cases, hospitalizations and deaths in that state right now compared to this time last year?

Last year at this time Massachusetts was averaging 472 cases/day (7-day average).

Massachusetts is currently averaging 4,426 cases/day. (9x higher).

Last year Massachusetts had an overall Covid hospitalization rate of 1.8/100,000.

Massachusetts currently has a hospitalization rate of 3.2/100,000. (78% higher).

More troubling is the fact that the hospitalization rate for those age 70+ was 6.1/100,000 last year at this time. It is now 15.6/100,000 for the age demographic most vulnerable to Covid. (156% higher).

New Daily Covid Hospital Admissions Per 100,000 in Massachusetts Source: The New York Times

Last year at this time Massachusetts was averaging 10 deaths per day (7-day average). Deaths this year are currently averaging 12 per day. (20% higher).

This is in a state with 84% of everyone in the state age 5 and over fully vaccinated.

For those age 65+, 95% are fully vaccinated.

If the vaccines are highly effective at preventing severe illness and death how is it that hospitalizations for those age 70+ are 156% higher now than last year and deaths are also higher?

Massachusetts is not alone.

These are the ten states with the highest average daily Covid cases per 100,000 right now led by Rhode Island which also (coincidentally?) has the highest vaccination rate in the nation.

Source: The New York Times

Rhode Island has almost 7 times the cases they had at this time last year.

Hospitalizations among those age 70+ in the state are 10 times higher than they were at this time last year.

New Daily Covid Hospital Admissions Per 100,000 in Rhode Island Source: The New York Times

Who can explain this?

95% of this age group are fully vaccinated and a large proportion boosted multiple times.

How are things going in San Francisco that still retains a mask mandate on public transit and undoubtedly has one of the highest mask usage rates in the country?

In addition, 88% of every man, woman and child age 5+ is fully vaccinated.

Cases are 36x higher this year than last year in San Francisco.

San Francisco has gone from a 17 cases per day last year at this time to 617 now.

New Reported Covid Cases in San Francisco- 7 day average Source: The New York Time

In fact, I found it interesting that San Francisco actually has almost 4 times more people hospitalized with Covid right now (64) than it had cases at this time last year (17).

Source; The New York Times

Wealthy Marin County just outside of San Francisco is the most vaccinated county in the United States.  93% of everyone age 5 and over is fully vaccinated.

Marin County now has more cases than at the Winter 2020/21 peak. Cases are 35x what they were last year at this time. Hospitalizations are 5x what they were last year.

How does any of this support the narrative on the vaccines?

That is why you won't see any of this on the network news.

One more thing you are not going to see on the network news is that Australia has now overtaken the United States in cumulative Covid cases per capita since the pandemic began.

New Zealand is on track to soon surpass the United States as well.

It was not long ago the story on the network news was that these countries were the models to follow for their strict Covid policies and harsh vaccine mandates.

Is it also a coincidence that the cases exploded in these countries at the same time that Covid vaccine booster doses were being administered aggressively to their populations?

Looking at this data I cannot help but think about the warnings of Geert Vanden Bossche on how the mass vaccination effort would inevitably lead to more variants that in the end would be more infectious and more virulent.

I can guarantee you have never heard the name Geert Vanden Bossche on the network news.

A year ago Vanden Bossche stated that we should be careful about believing the pandemic was over as we saw cases decline dramatically.

The tell-tale sign would be that although cases might decline, the likelihood would be that they would not decline below previous lows. They would fall and level off at a higher plateau than before.

He called this a "valley of fitness" in which the virus would be working around the immune pressure from the vaccinations and would ultimately result in viral escape with new variants capable of infecting more people.

Notice in this chart that U.S. cases came down but eventually exploded upwards to levels much higher than was seen before despite the mass vaccination campaign.

Vanden Bossche would argue this was caused by viral escape caused by the immune pressure from the vaccines. In effect, the vaccines are causing the variants and facilitating transmission of the virus.

Notice as well that while cases are down from the highs earlier this year they have not reached the level they were last year. They are persisting at a higher level than last year. ( As stated above, 4x higher than last year at the same time).

This is also consistent with the predictions of Vanden Bossche from over a year ago.

His thesis is that the virus is once again working around the vaccinal antibodies which has been made worse by the additional booster doses.

If he is correct, the next variant will be more infectious and more virulent than Omicron.

Are we already seeing this in the Northeast United States?

I hope not. However, the data is concerning.

I am going to be looking at the Covid data from the Sunbelt closely over the next several  months.

The last two years have seen cases go up dramatically in those states in the summer months.

I am particularly interested in seeing what happens in Florida with its large senior population and a vaccination rate that is higher than any other Sunbelt state.

In fact, cases are already about 3x higher in Florida and hospitalizations for those age 70+ are 45% higher than they were last year at this time.

Are we going to see this strong seasonal pattern repeat itself this year in the Sunbelt states?

That might tell us a lot of where Covid is headed next.

The bigger question is whether the network news will continue to repeat the narrative or will they start asking the tough questions and do some real reporting of why we are seeing what we are seeing over two years into this pandemic.

I wrote a blog post three years ago on what was the emerging fad involving fake meat.

A company named Beyond Meat had recently gone public in an IPO.

When I wrote about Beyond Meat it had a total stock market value of $14 billion.

It had $95 million in annual revenue and had a net loss of $27 million in the most recent year.

To put that $14 billion market value in context I pointed out that made Beyond Meat more valuable than two giants in the food industry---Campbell's Soups and Conagra.

These are the brands that Campbell's owns.

These are the major brands that Conagra owns.

Beyond Meat was going to need to convince a lot of people to eat fake meat to justify that valuation.

I wrote at the time that my guess was that this was not going to end well for Beyond Meat shareholders.

That ought to give you a perspective on how much money is being bet that you will eat fake meat.

However, will you really eat fake meat?

Count me as someone who is not buying Beyond Meat at $235 per share.

Source: https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/05/17/how-beyond-meats-losses-hit-a-jarring-92-of-sales/

Beyond Meat (BYND)

“If you said … for a 1% interest in all the farmland in the United States, pay our group $25 billion, I’ll write you a check this afternoon,” Buffett said. ”[For] $25 billion I now own 1% of the farmland. [If] you offer me 1% of all the apartment houses in the country and you want another $25 billion, I’ll write you a check, it’s very simple. Now if you told me you own all of the bitcoin in the world and you offered it to me for $25 I wouldn’t take it because what would I do with it? I’d have to sell it back to you one way or another. It isn’t going to do anything. The apartments are going to produce rent and the farms are going to produce food.”

Source: https://www.ft.com/content/17d7e07f-46c6-4c41-9202-e445928a405a

Most people never hear the real facts on the abortion issue.

That is because the facts are drowned out by a political narrative.

A good example of this were the comments last week by liberal tv host Bill Maher who stated he was shocked to learn several facts about abortion he did not know.

Source: https://www.theblaze.com/video/bill-maher-abortion-laws

“I learned things this week, because this put it on the front page, that are pretty basic things that I did not know about abortion," Maher told guests Michele Tafoya and Paul Begala. "Like in Europe, the modern countries of Europe, [are] way more restrictive than we are, or what they’re even proposing. If you are pro-choice, you would like it a lot less in Germany, and Italy, and France, and Spain, and Switzerland. Did you know that? I didn’t know that.”

“I learned most people who are pro-life are women. Did not know that. ... "

Maher has not become a pro-life advocate but he seems to now understand that the facts often do not match the narrative advanced by the Democrats and most of the mainstream media.

The Democrats in the U.S. Senate held a vote last week on a bill that would have allowed abortion for any reason for up to nine months, until the baby is born.

They claimed it was to codify Roe v. Wade but the fact is that it went far beyond what was permitted under the ruling in that case.

The bill actually did not even get majority support failing with 51 votes against--all 50 Republicans and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia. All other Democrats voted in favor of the bill.

After the vote I thought it was amusing that Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was complaining that a minority in the Senate should not have the ability to block things that the majority wants to do.

Warren seems to be poor at math. 51 out of 100 is not a minority. It is the majority.

Warren should also be careful about citing "democracy" on this issue.

A Pew Center poll of voters in March found that only 19% stated they wanted abortion to be legal in all instances as the Democrat bill was written.

I also thought it was interesting that last week we even had Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen weighing in on abortion claiming that eliminating abortion rights would have "very damaging effects on the economy".

Source: https://www.axios.com/2022/05/10/yellen-abortion-women-economy

Yellen's view on this seems to be counter to almost every other economic study in the world which has cited falling birth rates in developed countries as the bigger threat to future economic growth.

An example is this recent report from the the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. 

Lower birth rates are associated with less growth and a more rapidly aging population and, hence, slower economic expansion.

You may recall that Yellen was once Chairman of the Federal Reserve. 

Yellen seemed to be arguing that abortions were good for the economy because it meant fewer "low-income and often black" teenage women did not have babies they were not in a position to care for.

Can you imagine the reaction to this if a Secretary of Treasury in a Republican administration had said the same?

Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina had a highly appropriate and personal response to Yellen's comment.

Let's put that aside and look at the data on abortions.

Is it primarily, low-income, black, teen age women having abortions?

The Brookings Institution  (a liberal think tank) did a study on abortions by income groups in 2015.

That study found that there were many more abortions by single pregnant women who were earning at least 4X the federal poverty rate ($54,360/ yr in 2022) than those at the poverty level.

32% of the pregnancies in single women making at least $54,000 were aborted compared to only 9% among single women making the federal poverty rate of $13,590 or below.

Source: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/26_class_gaps_unintended_pregnancy.pdf

So much for the low-income argument.

How many total abortions are for teenagers?

The CDC collects data on abortions in 49 states (California refuses to provide its data for the survey) for an annual national urveillance study.

The most recent CDC data is for 2019.

The fact is that only 8.8% of abortions are related to teen pregnancies.

Most abortions are done on the 25-29 age group (29.3%).

So much for the teenager argument.

Another argument made by Democrats is that there should be no abortion restrictions in that many women do not know they are pregnant until after the first trimester so a 9-12 week limit is too restrictive.

However, the CDC data indicates that 43% of all abortions were done in the first six weeks of gestation and another 36% were done in weeks 7-9. 

92% of abortions are done by the 13th week before the end of the first trimester.

We also hear that abortions are not being done as a substitute for contraception. 

However, the CDC data shows that 42% of all abortions involved women that had already undergone a previous abortion.

Finally, a lot is made of the necessity of abortions in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is at risk due to the pregnancy.

The state of Florida requires that a reason must be provided for every abortion performed within its borders.

There are typically more than 70,000 abortions in Florida each year. That is over 10% of the total in the United States so the Florida statistics are probably a good representation for the national numbers.

Those statistics show that rape, incest and the life of the mother do not even account for half of one percent as the reasons for abortions in the state.

Serious fetal abnormalities account for less than 1% of all abortions.

There is no reason for almost all abortions other than the mother did not want the child for social, economic or personal reasons.

Reasons for Abortion, State of Florida, 2020 Source: https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

Abortion is really not about the life or health of the mother. It is not about rape, incest or fetal health.

As I have written before, it is really involves one fundamental question.

Does a woman have the right to put her rights above the right of the life growing within her?

If so, is there a point at which those rights end and the right to life of her baby take precedence?

Is it at conception? The point at which a fetal heartbeat is heard? The point at which the child would be viable outside the womb? At birth? After birth?

Tough questions involving a very tough issue. It always is when you start balancing "rights".

Just make sure you understand the bias inherent in much of what you see and read on the abortion issue.

And make sure you understand the actual facts about the issue rather than be force-fed a narrative that supports a political agenda.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the abortion issue. 

However, you can't have your own facts. Facts are facts.

It is also a fact that there is no national consensus on the abortion issue. There wasn't any 50 years ago and it is even truer today.

That is why I believe that overturning Roe v. Wade is the correct legal decision.

The correct result under the Constitution is that the collective opinion of the American people in each state are in the best position to determine how to balance the rights of mother and child.

If a national consensus forms around one position then a constitutional amendment can be used to enshrine whatever that is and any "right" that should be recognized in the Constitution.