Florida's Nature Coast

December 29, 2022 9:55pm

I spent the day at the Ellie Schiller Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park in Florida.

This is the time of year hundreds of manatees return to Homosassa Springs, Crystal River, and King's Bay in search of warm water. Because these bodies of water are all fed from springs pouring millions of gallons of fresh water per hour out of the Floridan Aquifer, the water is a constant 72 degrees year-round. And while 72 degrees may not seem "warm," it's a lot warmer than the Gulf of Mexico this time of year (the Gulf is currently below 62 degrees). Manatees can't survive long in waters below 68 degrees, so they migrate back to these spring-fed waters every winter seeking warmth.

This state park has an underwater viewing platform from which manatees can be observed. This park in Citrus County is "Old Florida," meaning "pre-Disney." On the Gulf side south of Big Bend but north of Tampa, it is an incredibly beautiful part of the state. The marketers appropriately call this area Florida's "Nature Coast."

Although I have snorkeled with the manatees before, I did not go in the water today.

Samuel Adams: The Father of American Independence

December 17, 2022 1:41pm

On today's radio program, I interviewed Stacy Schiff about her new book "The Revolutionary: Samuel Adams."

It is a detailed biography of the true Father of the American Revolution. When most people think of our Founders, the people who come to mind are George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. And while all those men were certainly instrumental in the creation of the United States, if it wasn't for Samuel Adams, they may all have lived their entire lives as subjects of the British Crown with no need for history to remember them. Because it was Samuel Adams, through speeches, published writings, the Sons of Liberty, and protests such as the Boston Tea Party who inspired the colonists to unite against tyranny.

Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff does an outstanding job telling the untold story of the Father of American Independence. Since Adams' work was so secretive, and he didn't write a memoir, his incredible story has been largely omitted from history. Today, he's most famous for the Boston Lager brewed by a company he has no connection with. But if you read "The Revolutionary: Samuel Adams," you'll know the man. And you'll know what a great American hero he is really is.

Today's program is now archived online as a podcast at at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/221217

The Brittney Griner Prisoner Swap Is Disgusting

December 8, 2022 11:18am

Brittney Griner's arrest, charges, and imprisonment in Russia were not dubious. She committed an actual crime and pleaded guilty to the charges. She never said she didn't do what she was charged with doing. She was not arrested on trumped up charges or planted evidence. She made the foolish but deliberate decision to possess illegal drugs in a country with harsh penalties for such crimes. Yeah, it sucks that she was incarcerated in Russia, but it was her own damn fault.

So why did Joe Biden work so hard to release Brittney Griner while doing nothing to get the release of Paul Whelan (a former U.S. Marine who was likely falsely accused of espionage)? We all know the answer. It is because Griner is a member of at least four protected classes preferred by Democrats, and Whelan is not.

That is why Joe Biden exchanged a worthless, America-hating basketball player for a convicted Russian arms smuggler. That arms smuggler, Viktor Bout, was such a bad guy that he was known as the "Merchant of Death." Bout was serving a 25-year sentence in a U.S. prison after being convicted in 2011 of conspiracy to kill Americans, conspiracy to deliver anti-aircraft missiles, and aiding a terrorist organization. But Biden let him out of prison. Apparently, aiding and abetting the killing of Americans is equivalent to possession of cannabis.

This prisoner exchange, along with nearly everything Biden has done, is disgusting. And destructive.

No, Trump Did NOT Say We Should Terminate the Constitution

December 4, 2022 5:11pm

Once again, the Democrats and their allies in the propaganda press have grossly misrepresented what Donald Trump has said. Democrats clutched their pearls as the fake news amplified the lie that Donald Trump posted in his Truth Social account a call for "the termination of the Constitution to overturn the 2020 election and reinstate him to power."

Following the release of internal Twitter e-mails that proved the FBI colluded with Big Tech to hide the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, what Trump actually said was “So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great "Founders" did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!” A screen shot of his post is above.

Donald Trump's poor use of the word "allows" does allow for misinterpretation of what he meant. But in the context of the entire post, it is very clear that "allows" meant "get away with" - as in "if we allow the 2020 election to be stolen via false and fraudulent elections, we are allowing the Constitution's authority to be terminated." Trump quite clearly said the exact opposite of what the fake news said he said.

Trump wasn't calling for the Constitution to be terminated! He was complaining that it had already been terminated by those who accepted the results of a fake and fraudulent election. As I have spoken and written about many times, the illegality and illegitimacy of the 2020 election was due to how it was unconstitutionally conducted; fraud need not be proven. Even without fraud, the results were invalid because the processes and procedures in at least seven states were improper. Is that just my opinion? No. Courts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have all found their 2020 elections were unconstitutionally conducted. Had Donald Trump won those three states, he would have been reelected. He would have also won without winning those states had the results in those states been invalidated, as they should have been. Our Republic was stolen from us in 2020.

The fake news has been lying about Donald Trump ever since he descended the elevator at Trump Tower on June 16, 2015. This is just the latest example. You can read my list of the top 45 lies the Fake News has told about Donald Trump at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/blog/201031-1010.

The deliberate deception of the American people by the fake news is disgusting. And dangerous.

Is Donald Trump Even Eligible to Be President Again?

November 18, 2022 3:13am

Is Donald Trump even eligible to be President again? Don't be so quick to answer that because the answer isn't automatically "yes."

The 22nd Amendment doesn't allow one person to serve more than ten years as President. That ten years would be two full four year terms plus half of the predecessor's term if he ascended to the presidency from the vice presidency. But that doesn't apply here. Trump has only served four years, so the 22nd Amendment has no bearing. But the 14th Amendment might. Legally, the 14th Amendment has no bearing here either. But that doesn't mean it won't come into play.

Clause 3 of the 14th Amendment states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

While that verbiage was included in the 14th Amendment to prevent Confederates of the Civil War from holding seats in government, Democrats will twist its meaning to include any Republican who did or said anything in support of the January 6th so-called "insurrectionists" that can be called "aid and comfort."

That epithet wouldn't be factually correct. But since when do facts matter to Democrats? If Democrats are good at anything, they're good at bitter partisanship, lying, cheating, and weaponizing language to get their way. And it will score them a lot of political points among their dangerously destructive base.

The reason the Democrats can get away with calling the January 6th riot an "insurrection" is because the activists posing as journalists in the propaganda press have amplified and will continue to amplify that lie via their onslaught of fake news. But the truth is the January 6th riot was NOT a "coup attempt" or an "insurrection."

Although the January 6th rioters at The Capitol had no chance of getting what they wanted, what they were seeking was one hundred percent constitutional. They were NOT seeking to "overturn an election" or "overthrow the government." They were simply demanding that Congress do what it is constitutionally allowed to do. Their means were criminal, but their intent was not.

I'm not defending the riot. The riot was the most idiotic thing supporters of the Republican Party have ever done. I'm not defending the criminals who broke into The Capitol on January 6th. I'm just pointing out that what they wanted Congress to do was perfectly constitutional. It was just pointless because there was no chance they were going to convince Congress to do the right thing. But all those protesters wanted was for Congress to refuse to certify the electors from the states that conducted unconstitutional elections.

I'm not talking about fraud. Whether fraud happened or not is irrelevant. It need not be brought up. I'm talking about the unconstitutional election processes that at least seven states used in their 2020 elections. Is that my opinion? Yes. But it is also the opinion of judges in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin who ruled the loosey-goosey election processes in those states were in fact unconstitutional.

The remedy for those unconstitutional elections is outlined in the Constitution of the united states. There's a Plan B and a Plan C. And they should have been used. But the Supreme Court refused to do its duty and rule on the merits of the disputed election results. And those state courts all ruled long after Biden was inaugurated and it was too late to remedy the election theft.

Congressional certification of the Electoral College vote is NOT merely a formality. The Constitution very specifically empowers Congress to be the final check that an election was lawfully conducted. And it very specifically allows ANY member of Congress to object to ANY electors for ANY reason.

Regarding Congress refusing to certify the Electoral College count, let me remind you that in 2017 during the congressional certification of the 2016 election, Democrat Congressmen Jim McGovern, Jamie Raskin, Pramila Jayapal, Raul Grijalva, Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Lee, and Maxine Waters all objected to some of Trump's Electoral College votes. Had any Senators also objected, a vote would have been taken as to whether to accept or reject those contested Electoral College votes. And if both houses voted to reject them, the votes would not have been counted. THAT IS A FACT. AND IT WAS PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL.

What's pathetic is that most Americans are completely unaware that even happened. Why? Because the fake news won't report that historical fact, and the Republicans are incompetent with their messaging.

To be clear, Vice President Mike Pence did NOT have the authority to reject Electoral College votes. Only Senators and Representatives did. And that's all they were asked to do by the protesters. It was a fool's errand, but it was not an unconstitutional request. And it wasn't an "insurrection." The reason the Democrats have so dishonestly used that word is to weaponize it against Republicans. And they are certain to weaponize it against Donald Trump as he runs his third presidential campaign.

But the theory that Donald Trump can be denied elected office because of the 14th Amendment is not merely an academic discussion. There is precedent for it; not for the presidency but for a county commission seat in New Mexico.

Couy Griffin was a county commissioner in Otero County, New Mexico. He was found guilty of entering The Capitol on January 6th. And a Leftist activist judge in New Mexico named Francis Mathew ordered Griffin to be kicked off the commission because he was an "insurrectionist." And, yes, his order used the word "insurrection." The judge wrote that Griffin "took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States ... [and then] engaged in that insurrection after taking his oath."

That judicial order was blatantly political. And is was blatantly unconstitutional because the January 6th riot was neither an insurrection nor a coup nor any attempt to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States, despite the Democrats and the fake news repeatedly saying it was.

Of course, there's big difference between an appointed low-level district judge in New Mexico and the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. And if such dishonest partisan action was taken against Trump, it would eventually be reversed by the Supreme Court. But do we want to go through all that? Do we want the January 6th riot being the centerpiece of the 2024 election?

If the state legislatures - or even just state election officials - were to state that Trump was ineligible to be President under the 14th Amendment, so they refused to put his name on the ballot, that would be a huge problem. I can certainly see election officials in California, New York, Illinois, and perhaps a dozen more dark blue states doing that - or at least trying to do it. Sure, Trump wouldn't win Electoral College votes from any of those states anyway. But if they refuse to put him on the ballot, the negative publicity of the judicial process as it wound its way to the Supreme Court would be harmful not just to Trump but to ALL Republicans.

And then when the Supreme Court properly ruled that the January 6th riot was not an insurrection and that Trump was not disqualified from holding office, that would motivate the partisan haters on the Left to show up in huge numbers to vote against the so-called "insurrectionist" the "stacked" Supreme Court put on the ballot. Republicans would be in a lose-lose position no matter what.

And that's just one reason why Donald Trump should not seek reelection. For the good of the country, Donald Trump should stay out of politics. But he doesn't have that in him. Donald Trump has always been about Donald Trump. I'm not saying he didn't do anything good for America when he was in office. He did a lot of good. But Trump is for Trump. And if he harms Republican chances to retake The White House from the unconstitutionally-elected usurper currently occupying it, so be it. He doesn't care. Because in Trump's world, if he doesn't win, he doesn't care who else loses in the process.

The sooner Republicans reject Donald Trump's third presidential bid the better.

Will Donald Trump Announce a Third Presidential Campaign Tonight?

November 15, 2022 6:12pm

Before Donald Trump speaks tonight, let me go on the record with this: Donald Trump should be thanked for all the good he accomplished as President. But he should never run for office again.

He could probably win the 2024 Republican primary. But he has no chance whatsoever of winning the general election. If he is the nominee, that will guarantee four more years of a Democrat in The White House.

Will America Run Out of Diesel Fuel in 25 Days?

November 5, 2022 4:16pm

The United States currently has only a 25 days supply of diesel fuel. But claims that we will run out by Thanksgiving are false. Yes, there is only a 25 day supply sitting in tanks, but we refine more every day. So we are always adding to the stockpile. But a 25 day supply is quite low.

Is the shortage of diesel fuel Joe Biden's fault? Not entirely, no. But he does bear some of the blame because his anti-fossil fuel policies have restricted domestic production as demand has gone up. There are a few reasons demand has gone up. U.S. refinery capacity has fallen in the past few years. The low water level in the Mississippi River has forced a lot of barge freight onto trucks, and trucks burn diesel. That increased usage is magnified by the seasonal demand for home heating oil in the northeast. Home heating oil is basically the same distillate as diesel. So people filling their home heating oil tanks in anticipation of winter are competing with transportation for what are at the refinery level essentially the same fuels. And that's all driving up consumption while Biden continues to restrict drilling.

Biden and the Democrats, along with their dishonest supporters in the propaganda press are telling us the shortage is due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But that is a lie. Sure, the invasion of Ukraine and the embargo against the importation of fuel from Russia has reduced what is available in the U.S. But the amount we used to import from Russia is LESS than the reduction of domestic production Biden's policies have caused.

America is extracting 1.2 million barrels per day less than our peak pre-Biden production. We used to import 360 thousand barrels per day from Russia. Do the math. We are NOT producing more than three times what we used to get from Russia. We should be MORE than making up for the shortfall of Russian oil. But we're not. Why? Because Biden and his fellow DemonRats think oil is the enemy.

During President Trump's four years in office, we averaged a 35.9 day supply of diesel. Even under Biden, our average supply has been 31.5 days, although it has been trending downward from the 44 day supply we had the day he was inaugurated. The current 25 day supply of diesel is about 25% lower than what we typically have on hand. And it is 43% lower than what Biden inherited.

But we will not "run out of diesel in 25 days" as some have claimed.

DATA SOURCE: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly/download.php

Should We Retain Florida's Judges?

November 5, 2022 3:44pm

As happens at every general election, there are many judges on the Florida ballot in what are known as "merit retention votes." Those votes give the electorate the choice of whether or not judges on the Florida Supreme Court and in Florida's five District Courts of Appeal get to keep their jobs. All ballots statewide have the Supreme Court judges on them. The ballots in each of the five judicial districts have only that district's appeals court judges on them.

The way judges are chosen to serve on the Florida Supreme Court has changed many times in the state's history. When Florida became a state in 1845, the legislature voted to determine which circuit judges would be elevated to serve on the Supreme Court. Then in 1853, that changed to Supreme Court justices being elected by popular vote. Less than a decade later, in 1861, the constitution was amended to allow the governor to appoint justices with the advice and consent of the Florida Senate. That method mirrored the way justices are selected to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

A little over a century later, in 1976, the constitution was amended to implement the system we use today, in which the Governor appoints judges to the Florida Supreme Court and to Florida's appellate courts. He is required to make those appointments from a list of candidates chosen by the Judicial Nominating Commission. No confirmation by the Florida Senate or anyone else is required. Those judges serve six year terms. New justices face their first merit retention vote in the next general election that occurs more than one year after their appointments. When when their six year terms expire, they can get additional terms, not by a reappointment, but by the electorate voting to retain them. They can also be forced off the bench by age. Florida has a mandatory retirement age of 75 for all Supreme Court, Appellate Court, Circuit Court, and County Court judges.

Circuit court judges and county court judges in Florida are still elected by popular vote. Statewide, there are exactly twelve circuit judge and county judge races on Tuesday's ballot.

Regarding appointments by the Governor to the Supreme Court and appellate courts, those appointments can be undone if the citizens vote to NOT retain the appointed judges. The judges serve upon appointment and Investiture. But if they lose a retention vote, they'll be out of a job.

In my opinion, all but one justice on the Supreme Court should be retained. The one that should be booted is Jorge Labarga. I don't know enough about all the appellate court judges to make an informed opinion of them. And I'm not going to waste my time learning about them. I just leave all those judicial retention questions on the ballot blank. Why? Because never since 1976 when the system was implemented in Florida has a judge ever been removed from office by losing a retention vote. And there have been a few judges that had multi-million dollar campaigns run against them trying to get them removed from office via retention vote. But they all have been retained anyway. Consequently, I don't bother to even vote on those.

The most famous campaign to remove a judge via a merit retention vote was in 1992 when there was a massive statewide campaign to remove Rosemary Barkett from the Supreme Court. She was a far-Left activist judge who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1985. She hated guns and loved murderers. She voted to overturn almost every death penalty sentence that came before her. So there was an aggressive advertising campaign to inform the voters of how horrible she was and to encourage a "no" vote on her retention. Despite that campaign, she was retained with 60.9% of the vote. Then two years later, in 1994, President Clinton named her to the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. That got her out of the Florida court system, which was nice. But it put her in a position to do further damage to our country from the federal bench where judges serve for life - although in her case she resigned in 2013 to go serve on the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague.

So if a massive statewide campaign trying to remove a soft-on-crime justice could not remove a judge through a retention vote, nothing will. The closest any judge in Florida ever came to losing a merit retention vote was in 2010 when Judge Charles Kahn, Jr. of the First District (which extends from Pensacola to Jacksonville) only got 53.1% of the vote to retain him. But it was enough to keep him on the bench. So I see these merit retention votes as a constitutionally mandated process that is not worth my time to research. Because no matter how bad a judge is, they'll be retained. There's never been a judge removed from the bench by losing a merit retention vote. Never.

Do do what you want on those. But no matter how you vote, every judge on the ballot will be retained.

Florida's Constitutional Amendments on the 2022 Ballot

November 5, 2022 3:00pm

As happens at every general election, Florida voters have constitutional amendments on the ballot to approve or reject. And while most such amendments should be rejected, two of this year's three should be approved. All three were placed on the ballot by the Florida Legislature.

This is how I will be voting on the three amendments:

#1 - YES

#2 - YES

#3 - NO

Here's why:

Amendment 1: Limitation on the Assessment of Real Property Used for Residential Purposes

Ballot Summary: “Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution, effective January 1, 2023, to authorize the Legislature, by general law, to prohibit the consideration of any change or improvement made to real property used for residential purposes to improve the property’s resistance to flood damage in determining the assessed value of such property for ad valorem taxation purposes.”

If this amendment passes, it would mean the state legislature could (and almost certainly would because it placed the amendment authorizing it to do so on the ballot) pass laws that would exempt from property tax assessment the increased value of a home if that increased value resulted from improvements designed to prevent flood damage; things such as elevating structures, filling basements, waterproofing, and improvements that would allow for stormwater runoff, waterproofing basements, installing check valves capable of preventing water backup, and elevating furnaces, heaters, and electrical panels.

While I recognize that such improvements would increase the value of a home, I'm perfectly OK with that increased value not being subject to taxation. Exempting such improvements would be an incentive for homeowners to make their homes more resistant to flood damage in a way that doesn't require an appropriation of taxpayer money - something I have opposed in the past when it's been done with outright grants (which is another way of saying "paid for with someone else's money who had no choice but to pay."). If it passes, it would take effect January 1, 2023. But it would not automatically mean the value of flood mitigation improvements wouldn't be included in ad valorum taxes. That would require an act of the state legislature. But the legislature does not have such authority to do that right now. Approval of Amendment 1 would give it that authority.

And I see that as a good idea. So I'm voting "yes" on 1.

Amendment 2: Abolishing the Constitution Revision Commission

Ballot Summary: “Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to abolish the Constitution Revision Commission, which meets at 20-year intervals and is scheduled to next convene in 2037, as a method of submitting proposed amendments or revisions to the State Constitution to electors of the state for approval. This amendment does not affect the ability to revise or amend the State Constitution through citizen initiative, constitutional convention, the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, or legislative joint resolution.”

If this amendment passes, it would abolish the Constitution Revision Commission. I wish it also made it more difficult for citizen petitions to propose changes to the state constitution, but it doesn't. The people, via petition, and the legislature via majority vote, would still be able to propose amendments in the future. And so could the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission. A constitutional convention could also still amend it. Approval of Amendment 2 would only prevent the Constitution Revision Commission from do so because it wouldn't exist anymore. And I see its elimination as a good thing. If our state constitution is in need of being amended, the legislature can propose it. And so can the people - either directly through petition or indirectly through their representatives and senators. But the Constitution Revision Commission is an unnecessary make-work body that feels like it has to monkey with our constitution whether there is a legitimate need to amend it or not. It's long past time to do away with that pointless bureaucracy that didn't even exist until 1968. It'll save Floridians the time and money of what the commission does, and it should reduce the number of unnecessary amendments we get in the future. And that would be a good thing.

So I'm voting "yes" on 2. Let's do away with the Constitution Revision Commission

Amendment 3: Additional Homestead Property Tax Exemption for Specified Critical Public Service Workforce

Ballot summary: “Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature, by general law, to grant an additional homestead tax exemption for non-school levies of up to $50,000 of the assessed value of homestead property owned by classroom teachers, law enforcement officers, correctional officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, child welfare services professionals, active duty members of the United States Armed Forces, and Florida National Guard members. This amendment shall take effect January 1, 2023.”

If this amendment passes, it would reduce property tax assessments by $50,000 on homes owned and occupied by the professions listed above. While that may sound on the surface to be a nice thing to do for people doing necessary jobs we appreciate, if you think it through, it is absolutely horrible policy. Taxes should be low and broadly spread. When special exemptions are given to certain classes of people, it just increases the tax burden of those not in those certain classes.

Keep in mind that all homesteaded Floridians already have a $50,000 exemption on their assessed values. This amendment would double it for those preferred classes. Something else that is worth pointing out with regard to this amendment is that property taxes in Florida fund local governments and local school systems. But this amendment was proposed by the state legislature. In other words, STATE lawmakers voted to reduce taxes at the LOCAL level, while leaving state funding unaffected. But if this bad amendment passes, those state lawmakers will brag to the voters about how they implemented a massive tax cut. And those voters will be so uninformed that they won't realize that the tax cuts would affect LOCAL tax revenue not state tax revenue.

To be clear, the proposed tax exemption would not reduce the school board portion of one's tax bill. Why is that? Because the state budget helps fund education all across Florida, so if school board taxes to fund local schools were cut, the state would need to make up the shortfall. But when other county and city services revenues are cut, the state legislature is under no obligation to help make up the shortfall at all.

If you want to make the argument that property taxes are too high, that's something I won't counter. But if property taxes are too high, the solution is to cut property taxes for everyone not just for a select few. And if you want to make the argument that teachers, police, firefighters, military, etc. are underpaid, I won't take the time here to convince you otherwise - even though most are not underpaid. But even if they were underpaid, and that was the justification to give them a special tax break, the remedy for low pay is not special tax exemptions. The remedy is higher pay!

Lastly, if Amendment 3 passes, those people's local property tax cuts would be automatic because the state legislature has already passed a law that would go into effect on January 1, 2023 if the constitutional amendment is passed on November 8th.

But it would be a horrible tax break for the reasons I just stated. And it would cost local governments an estimated $85.9 million in lost revenue for fiscal year 2023-24. And that figure would go up every year thereafter. The state legislature knows that that would be financially devastating to some small counties, which is why they would mitigate those losses of local tax revenue with an appropriation from the state coffers. How stupid is that? The state legislature wants to cut local tax revenues while at the same time promising to make up for the loss of local taxpayer money with state taxpayer money. It truly makes no sense whatsoever.

That's why I'm voting "no" on 3.

SUMMARY:

#1 - YES

#2 - YES

#3 - NO

Hey, Floridians! Fill Your Gas Tanks TODAY

October 31, 2022 6:19am

Gasoline prices are going to skyrocket nationwide after the election. But they're going up 25 cents in Florida tomorrow. So be sure to top off your tank today.

Did you notice the price of gasoline went down a 25 cents per gallon in Florida on October 1st? Well, it did. And it goes back up 25 cents tomorrow. Back in March, the Florida legislature passed HB 7071 which was a sweeping tax cut bill that included a one month fuel tax holiday for gasoline purchased in the state. Governor DeSantis signed that bill into law in May.

If you drive a vehicle that takes diesel, well, the Florida legislature didn't include diesel in its fuel tax holiday. But for those of you who've bought gasoline in Florida this month, you've saved 25 cents per gallon off what it would have been without the tax holiday. You may have noticed that the price has creeped back up about a quarter since October 1st, but it's still a quarter lower than what it would be otherwise. That upward creep in prices was not the retailers pocketing the fuel tax savings; that was specifically prohibited in the legislation. The rise in gas prices since the beginning of the month is due to a market driven price increase that would exist whether Florida suspended its 25.3 cent per gallon fuel tax or not.

Although I have saved that tax money at the pump this month, and I will top off my tank today, I did not - and still don't - support the fuel tax holiday. This month's gasoline fuel tax holiday collectively saved drivers in Florida $200 million. And while that's nice I suppose, it also deprived the state of $200 million in revenue it could have used to improve Florida's transportation infrastructure. I would have preferred to continue paying that quarter per gallon and seen our roads fixed.

But I'm not a fool. If you offer me easy and automatic savings, I'll take it. I just think it's bad policy. And no, that does not make me a hypocrite.

I recommend you fill your tank before the gas tax holiday ends tonight at midnight. If you buy 20 gallons, you'll save $5.00. You're welcome.

Biden's Use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Fund Democrat Political Campaigns

October 29, 2022 11:22pm

With Election Day just ten days from now, Joe Biden continues to use America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) as his own personal campaign account.

When he took office on January 20, 2021, the SPR contained 638 million barrels of oil. Today, it has 390 million. Where did those 248 million barrels go? That 39% depletion went to fund Democrat political campaigns across the country.

To be clear, the money from selling oil from the SPR does not get deposited in Democrat campaign bank accounts. The reason the sale is funding Democrat political campaigns is because his sole reason for tapping the SPR is to aid Democrats in the midterm elections.

The American people properly blame Joe Biden for the high price of gasoline. The day Biden went into The White House, a barrel of oil cost $52, and the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in the U.S. was $2.37 But on that same day, Biden issued an executive order that severely restricted the production of oil in the United States, and by June 2022, roughly 18 months into his term, the price of oil reached $120 a barrel and the average price of gas more than doubled to $4.96/gallon. Today, the price of a barrel of oil is $87, and the average price per gallon is $3.79.

Joe Biden is bragging about how that's $1.17 less than its peak. But he fails to mention that his anti-oil policies are still in effect; that prices are still $1.42 per gallon higher than when he took office (which is an increase of 60%); and that after the election when he stops tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, oil and gas prices are going to skyrocket again. Yeah, he leaves that part out. He leaves that part out because it would hurt the Democrats politically if you knew the truth. That's why he isn't telling you the truth. It's the same reason the so-called "news" media is also not telling you the truth. Because the so-called "news" media is nothing but the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party.

I know the President of the United States does not set gasoline prices. But his policies certainly influence it. And Biden's anti-fossil fuel policies caused prices to spike to a record high. Initially, Biden and the Democrats were fine with that because they thought it would force America to switch to wind and solar sooner than if prices remained low. But when polling indicated that those high gas prices would hurt Democrats on election day, Biden took steps to lower the price of oil, and with it, to lower the price at the pump too.

But did he do what would have made the most sense? No, of course he didn't. What would have made the most sense was to rescind his executive orders that restricted domestic oil production. Instead, he begged Venezuela to increase its oil production. And when Venezuela didn't, he begged Saudi Arabia to increase theirs. And the Saudis told him to pound sand. So he irresponsibly tapped our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

In 1973 and 1974, Arab nations refused to sell oil to the United States to punish us for supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War. We had long lines at gas stations, high prices at the pumps, and rationing of both the amount of gasoline people could buy and the days they could buy it. It showed how vulnerable we were to the whims of foreign suppliers of oil. We responded to that crisis by establishing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 1975. It's an emergency stockpile of petroleum maintained by the Department of Energy that consists of sixty underground salt caverns at four storage facilities; two in Texas and two in Louisiana. It has the capacity to store up to 714 million barrels.

The idea behind the SPR was to insulate the United States against oil supply disruptions from things such as embargoes and natural disasters. And with 714 million barrels in it, it also acts as a deterrent to anyone even imposing an embargo. And that's because we'd have the ability to release oil from the SPR to buffer the impact of an embargo; for a while anyway.

But because foreign suppliers of oil know that, they know that an embargo would have to be long-term to have any significant effect. Keep in mind that embargoes hurt the sellers too, not just the buyers. So there is an incentive on the side of the sellers for embargoes to be brief. But if our Strategic Petroleum Reserve can eliminate or at least limit damage in the short-term, and sellers don't want to embargo over the long term, that is a huge disincentive for the sellers to impose an embargo in the first place.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created to protect America from economic harm imposed upon us by foreigners. And it also allows the U.S. to release oil to address short-term, emergency supply disruptions to a refiner's normal operations. It was NOT created to allow the President of the United States to manipulate market prices by releasing oil from the SPR when it benefits his political party. But that is exactly what Joe Biden did.

In doing so, Biden has put the SPR's oil reserves at its lowest level since 1984. And I should point out that it wasn't this low in 1984 because we were using it; it was this low in 1984 because we were still filling it from its construction in 1977.

As would be expected, Democrats and their allies in the propaganda press keep reminding us that Joe Biden is not the first president to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And that's true. He isn't. But he is the first to tap it for the sole purpose of artificially and temporarily bringing down gasoline prices right before an election.

When Donald Trump tapped the SPR, it was because Hurricane Harvey reduced supplies.

When Barack Obama tapped the SPR, it was because Libya cut production during its civil war. And he tapped it again when Hurricane Isaac curtailed production.

When George W. Bush tapped the SPR, it was because hurricanes Lili, Iva, Katrina, Gustav, and Ike seriously reduced the availability of oil.

When Bill Clinton tapped the SPR, it was because a ship channel closure temporarily blocked incoming shipments of crude oil.

When George H. W. Bush tapped the SPR, it was when the Operation Desert Shield military buildup became the Operation Desert Storm war.

There have been other releases from the SPR. I won't list them all here. But NONE of them were for the purely political reason of artificially and temporarily lowering gasoline prices before an election as Joe Biden has done.

His release of our strategic petroleum reserves has been irresponsible. And it puts this country at great risk should a natural disaster or some geopolitical event like an act of war or terrorism cause real supply disruptions. What Joe Biden did here was the equivalent of emptying 39% of the firefighting water tank, so he could fill the pool for a party. And if there's a fire, there won't be enough water in the tank to extinguish it.

Further, because we're now in a vulnerable position, that increases the likelihood that an enemy actor will take deliberate steps to disrupt our oil supplies because they know we can't survive as long with such limited reserves.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve should have 108 days worth of imported oil in it. But we're down to just 59 days of imported oil replacement - all because Uncle Joe is a disgusting and dangerous partisan. Don't reward his behavior on Election Day.

MY DATA SOURCES FROM THE U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION:

Strategic Petroleum Reserve Stock Data - https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCSSTUS1&f=W

Historical Oil Prices - https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=RWTC&f=W

Historical Gasoline Prices - https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPM0_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W

Domestic Oil Production & Oil Imports - https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_snd_d_nus_mbblpd_m_cur.htm

Homeless in Seattle

October 5, 2022 10:10am

I experienced a couple days of being homeless in Seattle. It's not that I didn't have a bed to sleep in and a roof over my head. At night, I had both. But by day, I panhandled for money to help feed and shelter the homeless.

While most people simply ignored me, about five dozen gave me money. Cash handouts ranged from twelve cents to twenty dollars. The most common verbalized reason not to give was "I don't have any cash on me." But I am certain the majority who said that just figured it was a kind way of saying "no" in a manner that could not be overcome.

So I set up a Venmo account with a QR Code, so people without cash could quickly and easily donate. The next day, when people would tell me they had no cash on them, I'd reply, "I can take Venmo. Just click on this QR Code" while flipping one edge of my sign to reveal the QR Code. And while that didn't get everyone to donate, it did encourage some allegedly cashless people to donate. When I responded with my Venmo payment information to one guy who said he had no cash on him, he laughed, said, "Oh my god, that's hilarious," scanned the QR code and sent me $20, which dinged my cell phone in less than two minutes.

In about six hours over two days, I collected $153.56 in handouts. That works out to be an hourly income of $25.59. Pretty good, huh? But I kept none of it. I donated the full $153.56 to the Waterfront Rescue Mission in Pensacola. It is a Christian mission that feeds and shelters the homeless while providing drug & alcohol recovery treatment to those who need it. Most of the homeless who graduate from the mission’s vocational training program get jobs and go on to be productive members of society. The mission's work is highly effective. And they are very good stewards of the money people donate to help support the cause.

Over the years, the Waterfront Rescue Mission has improved countless lives. For more than two decades, I have supported their mission with donations, free radio commercials, and through radio interviews with its management team and some of the people whose lives were saved because people cared enough to care.

If you would like to donate money to support the very good work of the Waterfront Rescue Mission, online donations can be made at www.WaterfrontMission.org

The above photos are a collection of some photographs taken during my two days being "Homeless in Seattle."

Why Student Loans Should Not Be Dischargeable in Bankruptcy

September 26, 2022 9:26am

There was a time when student loan debt could be discharged in bankruptcy. But that changed in 2005 when Congress overhauled America's bankruptcy laws via the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act.

It was a bipartisan bill that President George W. Bush signed into law. Do you know which Democrat Senator supported it most? I'll give you a hint. He was a senator from Delaware. Yep! That's right. Senator Joe Biden was one of the most vocal supporters of no longer allowing student loan debt to be discharged in bankruptcy. Why was that? Was it because he genuinely thought people should pay back their student loans? Doubtful. It was probably because Delaware is the corporate home for some of America's largest banks, and the banking industry gave him millions in campaign donations.

In the preceding ten years, from 1995 to 2005, the amount of outstanding student loan debt borrowed from private financial institutions nearly tripled from $56 billion to $150 billion. It made student loan debt rank second only to home mortgages in terms of total money owed. And passage of that Act triggered an explosion in the amount of student loans made private lenders. Why? Because those lenders, with student loans no longer being dischargeable in bankruptcy, were far more likely to get repaid. So they started loaning money to pretty much any student who would sign on the dotted line. And that easy money then triggered a massive surge in tuition, room, and board at America's colleges and universities. And why wouldn’t it? Just as easy money for sub-prime mortgages triggered a massive spike in real estate prices that ultimately crashed and caused the housing crisis and great recession of 2008, easy money for college triggered a massive spike is college costs. But widespread college loan defaults didn't materialize because student loans could no longer be discharged by declaring bankruptcy.

Student loan debt should absolutely NOT be dischargeable in bankruptcy. If student debt could be discharged via bankruptcy, most students would take out as much debt as possible, live in luxury while in college, and then declare bankruptcy upon graduation. Sure, their credit scores would be lousy for seven years. But it would likely be far more financially rewarding than paying off the debts they incurred.

Colleges would also massively increase tuition, room, board, etc. And with no way to "repossess" an education, the taxpayers would be screwed even more than they're currently getting screwed.

Despite bi-partisan attempts to make student loan debt dischargeable in bankruptcy, it would be disastrous policy.

The Unconstitutionality and Irresponsibility of Biden's So-Called "Cancellation" of Student Loan Debt

September 24, 2022 4:19pm

There are two indisputable facts about college loans: 1) the easy availability of taxpayer subsidized money for college is THE reason the costs of tuition, room, and board have FAR outpaced inflation, and 2) Joe Biden's so-called "cancellation" of student loan debt was nothing but an unconstitutional taxpayer funded vote-buying scheme.

College is outrageously expensive because the government makes it too easy to get money for college, and the Democrats - as they always do - have bought votes from lazy and irresponsible people by writing off up to $20,000 in student loan debt: $10,000 for borrowers who did not receive Pell Grants and $20,000 for borrowers who did receive Pell Grants. Pell Grant recipients have already received free money from the taxpayers. Why should they get twice as much now as those who didn't?

According to the Department of Education, the typical four year student with loans now graduates with nearly $25,000 in debt. Is that a lot? Yes, it is. But it's $15,300 less than the average new car loan and $3500 less than the average used car loan. And the average car loan - new or used - gets paid off in 68 months. That's a little over 5 1/2 years. But how long does it take to pay off the typical student loan? Most student loan contracts are structured to be paid off in ten years. But the average borrower actually takes 21 years to pay it off! Why? Because people make the minimum payments, and the government keeps allowing payments to be suspended for a whole host of reasons - all while interest is accruing, of course. And those numbers are for a person with a four year degree. People who took out loans for graduate schools can take 45 years to pay 'em off! That's crazy. And it makes no economic sense for most people.

If a doctor borrowed $250,000 to get his medical degree in a field that's in demand, that might make sense. But if some idiot 2.0 GPA Leftist borrowed $250,000 to get a degree in gender discrimination and white patriarchal oppressionology with a minor in philosophy from some private Ivy League university, that fool will NEVER earn enough to pay off the loan. But the government will equally loan out the annual maximum to both. And the government will set up the repayment schedule based on the person's post-graduation income. So the doctor making a $300,000/year will get out of debt a lot faster than the person with the useless degree in Destructive Activism studies. Unless, of course, the Democrats cancel some of those student loans in exchange for votes.

And that is exactly what Biden has done. Well, no it isn't. That's what the Democrats and their allies in the fake news said Biden did. But Biden didn't cancel ANY college debt. All he did was transfer the debt from the students who incurred it to the taxpayers who did not. And it wasn't about "paying for college." It was about "paying for votes."

It is horrible policy. But is Uncle Joe's act of forgiving student debt like he did even legal? Can he constitutionally do it? No, he can't. "People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress."

Are those my words? No. Those are the words of Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. It was one of the rare times when Nancy Pelosi actually spoke the truth about the constitution's separation of powers and the limits on what the Executive Branch can do. She said those words in response to a question by a reporter at one of her weekly press conferences. You can see her say it at the 14:30 point of the video at https://www.c-span.org/video/?513769-1/house-speaker-pelosi-holds-news-conference.

But Speaker Pelosi said that BEFORE Biden transferred somewhere between a quarter trillion dollars and a half trillion dollars of student loan debt from the people who borrowed it to the taxpayers who did not. But what did Pelosi say AFTER Biden's illegal transfer of student loan debt? She said she supported his actions. How’s that for respecting our constitution, huh?

Those actions mean the taxpayers will be on the hook for that "canceled" student loan debt for generations to come. And that's on a macro scale. What it means on a micro scale is that a plumber who did an apprenticeship instead of college is paying for someone else's college education. It means the guy who enlisted in the military so he could get GI Bill funding for college is now paying for the college education of that lazy pacifist who didn't. It means the student who worked while attending college is paying for the tuition of the frat boy who got a degree in drinking and partying. It means the parents who sacrificed and saved for eighteen years to pay for their kids to go to college are now paying for the education of kids whose parents drove the newest cars and went on fancy vacations instead of saving for their kids' educations. But that is typical of every Democrat program, isn't it? What? You were responsible and took care of yourself and your family? Suckers!

While the so-called "cancellation" of student loan debt dominated the headlines, another part of Biden's action reduced the monthly loan payments that borrowers have to pay on their remaining balances. But like most Democrat programs, they sound good to the dumb masses (read those two words together quickly) who are uninformed ignoranuses (spelling intended) who don't have the intellectual capacity to think beyond the talking points they've been spoon fed. The reality is that by reducing the monthly payment people have to make, the length of the loan is extended, and the interest costs will be substantially higher.

A thirty year mortgage on a house has lower monthly payments than a 15 year mortgage. But the time it takes to pay it off is double and the amount of interest paid over the life of the loan is 40% - 60% more depending on the interest rate. So the ball and chain of debt weighs down on the borrower for twice the time and costs around 50% more over the life of the loan. And that usually means people end up delaying the start of saving and investing for their futures, which just keeps them indebted to the lender longer. And since student loans are almost entirely funded by the U.S. government these days, that keeps voters indebted to the Democrats longer. And that's exactly what the Democrats want; for the largest possible number of people to be dependent on government programs for as long as possible.

Government dependency breeds more than just lazy parasites. It breeds voters who will vote for more and more subsidies and handouts from the nanny state. It causes people who have biologically reached adulthood to intellectually and financially remain diaper-clad infants who can't take care of themselves and depending upon - and voting for - Democrats to keep spoon-feeding them. It is a disgusting and very deliberate dumbing down of America. It is an intentional breeding of as large of a parasitic class as possible. Because parasites vote for Democrats. That explains the entirety of the Democrats' love of welfare handouts to as many people as possible. Democrats don’t want us to be free and independent because if we can take care of ourselves and don't need the government to care for our every need, then we wouldn't vote for Democrats.

Government handouts are the closest thing we have to a perpetual motion machine. Because dependency breeds more dependency, and dependents vote for Democrats who promise more and more free stuff, the Democrats breed and import as many infantile parasites as possible - all under the guise of "helping" them of course. But it doesn't help them. It hurts them. And it will destroy our country.

In the words attributed to Alexander Tytler (even though there's no evidence he ever actually said them), a society goes through eight stages:

“From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage.”

We are now very late in that cycle. And we're running out of time to change it, especially at the rapid pace the Democrats are imposing it upon us.

The demise of our Republic is best described in words attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville even though there's no evidence he ever said it either. That quote is "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

And that has been the Democrat plan since the 1930s. But it accelerated in the 1960s with the Cloward-Piven Strategy, got put into overdrive under Barack Obama, and is now in hyperdrive under Joe Biden. There is no limit to how much money most Democrats are willing to spend to destroy this country's capitalist economy, so they can rebuild it as a socialist utopia - with them in charge, of course. Now, that doesn't absolve Republicans of their complicity in a lot of that runaway government spending. During the overhyped COVID pandemic, Republicans were just as eager to spend money like drunken sailors with fiat money as the Democrats were.

The day Barack Obama was sworn-in to office, January 20, 2009, the national debt was $11.1 trillion. It was $19.8 trillion when Trump was inaugurated, meaning it increased 78.3% during Obama's eight years. Pre-COVID under Trump, it increased another $3.4 trillion to $23.2 trillion. But the wasteful bi-partisan so-called "COVID Relief Spending" added another $2.9 trillion under Trump. And then the Democrats promptly added another $1.9 trillion in more unnecessary COVID relief spending in March 2021. Add to that the regular annual budget deficits and the other wasteful vote-buying spending bills the Democrats have passed over the past 20 months they've been in total control of Congress and the White House, and the national debt is now $30.9 trillion.

Since the day Barack Obama was inaugurated, the national debt has almost tripled from $11.1 trillion to $30.9 trillion. It's gone up 178%! And with Biden's student loan vote-buying scheme, the Democrats have just added to our national debt another half trillion dollars to trillion dollars, depending on whose analysis we believe.

But let's look at the danger of just the raw total of the known, already-incurred national debt of $30.9 trillion. Do you have any idea what a massive sum of money that is? And where is that money coming from? It's mostly been fiat money created out of thin air by the printing presses.

Pre-COVID, in February 2020, the M1 money supply was $4.002 trillion. Just three months later, in May 2020, the M1 money supply was $16.232 trillion. That was an increase of 305%! In three months!

And the M1 money supply in July 2022 was $20.514 trillion. So in 30 months, the M1 money supply has gone up 413%. How can we NOT have massive inflation following a quintupling of the money supply in 2 1/2 years???

The M2 money supply is broader than the M1, so many consider it to be a more important metric. Well, in February 2020, the M2 money supply was $15.458 trillion. Just three months later, in May 2020, the M2 money supply was $17.835 trillion. That was an increase of 15.3%! And the M2 money supply in July 2022 was $21.709 trillion. So in 30 months, the M2 money supply has gone up 40.4%.

That's not as big as the increase in the M1, but it's still a massive increase. It's still irresponsible. And it's still very inflationary. That kind of fiat money lit the inflation fuse. The explosion was inevitable. The only question was exactly when inflation would explode and how bad that explosion would be. It is the reason high inflation is going to be with us for a while, regardless of which party governs this nation over the next four years.

That high inflation will have a terrible effect on our debt. The 10 Year U.S. Treasury Rate is about 3.4% right now. The 20 year Treasury is about 3.8%, and the 30 year is around 3.5%. Those rates are all at least 70% higher than what they were at the end of last year. The exact rate increase are 126% higher for the 10 year, 81% higher for the 20 year, and 70% higher for the 30 year. And this quarter, the Series I Savings Bond is paying a whopping 9.62%!

The effect those interest rates will have on our national budget is huge. The national government's current debt is $30.9 trillion. That means every 1% we pay in interest costs $309 billion. If we pay 3% interest on that debt, that's $927 billion dollars - almost a trillion dollars in debt service alone. That doesn't include any principle reduction. That's just the interest. And 9.62% interest on $30.9 trillion would be $2.97 trillion.

THREE TRILLION DOLLARS IN INTEREST ALONE??? The current federal budget, which is the budget for fiscal year 2022 which ends in two weeks totals $5.8 trillion. So $3 trillion dollars would constitute 51.7% of the entire federal budget this year.

2022 spending on Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Affordable Care Act totals $1.4 trillion. We'll spend $1.2 trillion on Social Security. That's $2.6 trillion between those two programs - $400 billion dollars LESS than what a $3 trillion interest on our debt would be. In case you're wondering, the Defense Department will get $768 billion.

To be clear, that national debt is financed with both short term and long term bonds. So even if interest rates skyrocket from here, much of our debt will still be financed with lower rate instruments. But the problem remains that as interest rates go up, the cost of servicing our debt goes up. And as the cost of servicing our debt goes up, the percentage of our budget needed to pay the interest will go up. And that will require even more borrowing. The government will borrow from its Visa card to pay its MasterCard. Or it will require massive tax increases which will put tremendous downward pressure on our economy and cause even more economic harm than we're experiencing now.

Or we could just reduce federal spending. But that won't ever happen. We're caught in a vicious cycle of economic calamity. And we're not getting out of it anytime soon no matter who's in control of the government.

But divided government, with Republicans controlling the House and Senate in 2023 and 2024 would be somewhat beneficial. And it would be far superior to the Democrats controlling everything for the next 2 1/2 years. That's not partisanship. That's objective observation. I hate both parties. But I hate the Democrats more. Both parties suck. On a scale of zero to 10, Democrats are a 1, and Republicans are a 4. Both are failing grades.

But the reason I just went through those numbers is because the cost of Biden's college loan vote-buying scheme will make our national deficits and national debt much worse. It's unsustainable. And everyone knows it's unsustainable. But it will buy votes for Democrats in November. And that's the only goal of Democrats - political power. They don't give a damn about our nation, our finances, our Constitution, or our future. As long as the DemonRats are in power, they're perfectly OK with sending the country to hell in a hand basket.

Democrats are trying to justify Biden's so-called "cancellation" of student loan debt by saying the students didn't understand what they were getting themselves into when they took out the loans. Think about that. The stupidity of that argument is beyond comprehension. These very people who are saying that 18 year-olds are too immature to understand what a loan is are also telling us that an 8 year-old is mature enough to choose to change gender and undergo sex change procedures without the parents' consent. If you believe such Democrat lies, then you're an idiot.

And would someone please explain to me why somebody whose college education doesn't produce enough value for him to pay off his loans is of such importance to society that the taxpayers should be forced to pay it off??? Seriously. Why should the taxpayers be forced on the hook for the student loans of someone who borrowed a quarter million dollars to get a master's degree in gender studies, which qualifies them to contribute nothing of value to society? All that gender studies degree prepares someone to do is be a ne’er-do-well, malcontent, crybaby, Leftist, community activist whose mission is life is to destroy the United States as a free, constitutional republic and usher in a socialist utopia under one party rule - with that party being the Democrats, of course.

But even if someone got a degree in something useful like hard sciences or business, why should the taxpayers take over his student loan payments and get nothing in return, huh? Well, we know the answer to that question too. Society as a whole may not get anything in return, but the Democrat Party gets a lifetime of votes from the freeloader.

Many people rightfully acknowledge that the burden of student loan debt is a big problem. It is a big problem. But the Democrats' solution to the problem, as usual, will make the overall situation worse without really even being of much help to the people it is supposedly designed to benefit.

As we've discussed, the problem was created when the Democrats made borrowing money for college too easy with no consideration of whether or not the college degree being pursued would have any economic benefit to the borrower in terms of better jobs with higher pay. Instead, it was marketed as an "Everyone deserves an education" policy of goodness and equality for all.

But despite it being sold as making college more affordable, it actually made college LESS affordable. Not in the near term, of course. Everything is more affordable when it can be put on a credit card with no short-term discomfort. But when that easy money comes due - when it's time to pay off that credit card - or in this case easy money student loan, a lot of people realize they can't afford the payments. So they got hit with the double whammy of higher costs of a college education because school administrators knew they could raise prices and students could easily borrow enough money to pay those higher costs; and then they got hit with the second whammy of "Oh, hell, my worthless degree in America-hating propaganda isn't lucrative in the job market, but I'm saddled with this massive debt I incurred to get it." And then they cry to the cameras and to their elected officials who enabled their dependency in the first place to coddle them even more and enable them even further by saying it wasn't the student's fault they took out such massive debt and by promising that if the debtors would simply vote for more Democrats, the government would pay off their loans with taxpayer money. And, of course it worked! Because that's how Democrat vote-buying schemes always work.

Today, 45 million Americans owe $1.6 trillion in student loan debt. The average borrower owes $28,950, which means Biden will cut the average Pell Grant recipient's student loan debt by 69% and will cut the average non-Pell Grant recipient's student loan debt by 34%. That's a a very basic back-of the envelope calculation. I based the loan amount on the overall average. But the average Pell Grant recipient owes more than the average non-Pell Grant recipient; I just don't know the exact figures. I looked for that data, and couldn't find it broken down that way.

The Biden Administration estimates that the entire remaining student loan balance for roughly 20 million borrowers will be written off. That's a pretty good number of voters isn't it? "Hey, I just canceled the ENTIRE BALANCE of your loan, so remember who did that come election day!” But wait! There's more! Normally, when a debt is forgiven, the borrower has to add the forgiven amount to their income, so the IRS can tax 'em on it. But the Democrats' so-called "American Rescue Plan" specifically eliminated that for canceled student loan debt, meaning it will NOT be considered taxable income by the federal government.

And keep in mind that no borrowers with federally-held student loans have been required to make a single payment throughout the entirety of Biden's time in office. Not a penny. Not since March 2020. And Biden just extended that payment pause until after December 31st this year, so it will be AFTER the November midterm elections. And get this - people who've made payments during that time anyway are being encouraged to request that those payments be refunded. Do you know why? So it can be forgiven! So it can be picked up by the taxpayers! Seriously. I know that sounds like a joke, but I promise you it's not. People who have paid anything toward their student loan balances since March 13, 2020 have been encouraged by the Democrats to request refunds of those payments so the total amount they paid back (up to $10,000 or $20,000 depending on whether they got a Pell Grant or not) can be picked up by the taxpayers. How's THAT for a great vote-buying scheme, huh?

But if a plaintiff is able to establish judicial standing to sue, the courts will eventually reverse Biden's college loan cancellation scheme as the unconstitutional action that it is. And when that happens, the uneducated Democrats and their allies in the propaganda press will accuse the Republicans of being evil fascists who hate educated people. And just as what happened when the Supreme Court properly overturned the flawed Roe v. Wade decision, the Left will be outraged over losing something they were never legally entitled to in the first place. And that's why, as destructive as Democrats are, American academia and the American press are worse. Because if people were properly educated and informed, the Democrats would never be able to get away with the deliberate dishonesty they do.

A lot of Democrats and their allies in the propaganda press have said it is hypocritical for Republicans to oppose student loan forgiveness if they voted for the Paycheck Protection Plan (PPP) that Congress funded when the economy was shut down by COVID mandates. But it is intellectually dishonest to compare the two types of loan forgiveness because they have nothing in common. The student debt was voluntarily taken via contract that required repayment. And it was for the elective activity of seeking higher education. The PPP was written into law as a loan forgiveness giveaway program from the very beginning.

Further, the PPP wasn't really a loan program to business owners as Democrats and the Fake News have told us. It was funded as a form of unemployment compensation at a time when governments FORCED businesses to close. And since very few closed businesses can afford to pay people to NOT work, the government gave them the money to pay people to NOT work. If those employees were not paid with PPP money, in most cases they would have been paid via unemployment compensation anyway. And either way, it would have come out of the government coffers.

So to say that Biden's illegal executive action to write off people's student loans and put $10,000 or $20,000 of their loan balances onto the backs of the taxpayers has anything in common with the legislated PPP loan forgiveness is grossly dishonest. Which means it is typical propaganda of the DemonRats. And they'd never get away with such dishonesty if we had an objective press in this country. But we don't have an objective press. What we have in this country is an activist press that will flat out lie to you either by commission or omission in support of the DemonRats' destructive agenda. It's disgraceful. And dangerous.

The Supreme Court Finally Corrects Its Roe v. Wade Error

June 24, 2022 9:12pm

In a 6 - 3 decision released today, the U.S. Supreme Court used Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization to finally correct the egregious error it made 49 years ago.

Pro-life Republicans are jubilant. Meanwhile, pro-abortion Democrats are outraged over this ruling and have pledged to make it legal nationwide to kill children in the womb.

But whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion is legally irrelevant. Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision because it is not a constitutional issue. The courts previously fabricated a connection out of whole cloth. The court of original jurisdiction in Texas should have dismissed the case in 1970 and left the issue to the states where it constitutionally belongs.

The federal government has ZERO say in the matter. That's why Roe was inherently flawed from the beginning and why the high court corrected its error via Dobbs.

Many Democrats have decried today's ruling as theocratic authoritarianism. But the Dobbs decision has NOTHING to do with separation of church and state. It is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT about separation of federal and state powers. Hopefully, it signals the high court's return to honoring the plain federalist text of our Constitution.

The battle between life and death for the pre-born will now move to state legislatures where being pro-life or pro-choice will matter as states craft their own abortion laws. It is in the state capitols where the moral, social, and scientific arguments need to be made before the STATE legislatures and STATE courts, which are the constitutionally appropriate venues where abortion laws should be created.

With the Dobbs decision, the federal government should finally out of the equation on the issue of abortion. But that is not happening. Some Republicans have promised Congressional action to outlaw abortion nationwide, and some Democrats have promised to mandate unrestricted access to abortion-on-demand for any reason and at any point in a pregnancy.

But Congress CANNOT codify abortion into law. The federal government has ZERO say in the matter. That's why Roe was inherently flawed from the beginning and why the high court corrected its error via Dobbs. Absent a constitutional amendment, Congress may neither outlaw nor require the availability of abortion services in any state.

What is disgraceful about the Dobbs decision is that all three Democrat-appointed justices on the high court (Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) won't allow the plain text of our Constitution to get in the way of their radical judicial activism. Those three Leftists found a “right to abortion" where it doesn't exist. And just yesterday in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen said that "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms" was not a Right of the people to keep and bear arms. It's disgraceful.

All the people who are upset by today's Dobbs decision are also a disgrace - not just because they support killing babies in the womb, but because they disrespect the Constitution of the United States.

While I am able to set aside personal political preferences to analyze our Constitution objectively, I know most people cannot. They simply "feel" as they do with no basis in fact, history, or law. And that does present a political problem. The Dobbs decision, while constitutionally correct, will certainly harm Republicans in the November elections. But that is not the concern of a legitimate court. The Supreme Court ruled properly.

The Klondike Gold Rush

June 11, 2022 9:16am

The Klondike Gold Rush (1897 - 1899) was not just an amazing chapter in American and Canadian history. It was one of the greatest adventures of western civilization.

During the depths of the depression brought about by the Panic of 1893, gold was discovered in Canada's Yukon Territory. When news of that find reached the Lower 48, the stampede was on. An estimated 100,000 people raced north towards the gold in hopes of striking it rich. But few had any idea what hardships they were getting themselves into. And almost all went home with far less money than they started with.

On last week's radio show, I interviewed Park Ranger Chris Gibbs at the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park in Seattle. But our discussion only got us to Dawson City. So I aired the second half of our conversation this morning to complete the story. Both episodes are now archived online as podcasts.

The first half is at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/220604. The second half is at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/220611.

Citizen Cash: The Political Life and Times of Johnny Cash

April 2, 2022 2:16pm

Johnny Cash was one of the best-selling musicians of all time. He was a very talented artist and a complex man. He was raised in poverty on a farm in Arkansas. As an adult, he was an Air Force veteran, a gospel singer, a womanizer, a drug addict, and an adulterer who, in a beautiful almost Prodigal Son fashion, redeemed himself in the end.

He'd never been imprisoned for his crimes, but he had empathy for prisoners. He wasn't a Native American whose land had been stolen, but he had empathy for the Indians. He never suffered from racism, but he had empathy for those who did. He was a political activist who both sides claimed as an ally. His crossover appeal earned him inductions into the Country Music, Gospel Music, Nashville Songwriters, and Rock & Roll Halls of Fame.

On today's radio program, I interviewed Michael Stewart Foley about his book "Citizen Cash: The Political Life and Times of Johnny Cash." That episode is now archived online as a podcast at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/220402

If you're a fan of The Man in Black, you'll want to listen to our interview and read his book. The book is available online at www.amazon.com/Citizen-Cash-Political-Times-Johnny/dp/1541699572

She is NOT What Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Dreamed About

March 23, 2022 11:10pm

The color of Ketanji Brown Jackson's skin should be irrelevant. It should not have been a factor in her nomination. But Democrats always obsess about race and pander via their disgraceful tactics of Identity Politics.

I have a dream that one day Democrats will judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

My favorite Supreme Court Justice is Clarence Thomas because of his proper originalist interpretation of our Constitution. Even when I've been pleased with the outcome of some cases, I've not always agreed with how the majority reached its opinion. But when Thomas writes concurring opinions, they almost always align with what I've said about the cases and their underlying constitutional principles.

As Democrat appointees usually do, Ketanji Brown Jackson will be a Leftist justice who twists the plain meaning of our Constitution to suit her party's political agenda. At least for now, however, that shouldn't affect any decisions of the Court. We'll see what destruction to our Republic her nomination and certain confirmation will bring long term.

Why are gasoline prices so high?

March 19, 2022 9:19am

Why are gasoline prices so high?

The Republicans blame Biden. The Democrats blame Putin. But the situation is never quite as simple as the politicians and the press make it out to be. The truth is always much more complicated.

On today's radio program, I interviewed the Gulf Coast Region Director of the American Petroleum Institute to get the industry's reasons for record high gasoline prices. His knowledge and insight was very helpful explaining what is really happening with America's energy situation without the partisan slant delivered by the politicians and the press. I greatly value that objectivity.

If you'd like to hear our discussion, it is now archived online as a podcast at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/220319

How Biden NOT Putin Caused Record High Gas Prices

March 12, 2022 12:49pm

This week, the national average price for a gallon of gasoline hit a new record high.

The previous record high of $4.11 was reached in July 2008 when production couldn't keep up with the demand our strong economy created. But that shortfall was not due to an executive order that forced the shutdown of active energy fields as Biden's January 2021 executive orders did.

The White House is trying to blame the record high gas prices on Vladimir Putin. And while Russia's invasion of Ukraine certainly added to the price hike, you'd have to be an idiot to believe that Putin is responsible for the bulk of the price increases that have occurred under Biden. Current gas prices are absolutely the fault of Joe Biden and his misguided policy of putting climate change at the very top of his list of priorities. THAT is why we are paying so much at the pump.

The day Joe Biden was inaugurated, the average price per gallon of gasoline in the United States was $2.37. One year later it was $3.30. That 93 cent rise is an increase of 39.2%! And it had NOTHING to do with Russia invading Ukraine (which occurred on February 21, 2022).

The increase in gas prices from inauguration to invasion was $1.16. Most of that 48.9% increase was a direct result of Joe Biden restricting the domestic production of oil. And some is due to overall inflation and higher demand.

The post-invasion price increase can be partially attributed to the war. But Biden's imbecilic energy policies exacerbated that because they caused so many bankruptcies of energy companies and closures of drilling sites that the United States cannot simply pump more oil using existing infrastructure. It's not just a matter of opening a spigot a little more.

To make matters worse, while Biden has restricted domestic oil production, we substantially increased the importation of Russian oil since his inauguration, although he did announce this week we'll no longer do that. But Biden is advocating that we buy oil from Iran and increase our oil purchases from Venezuela. Why is Biden so willing to buy oil that funds America's enemies but is unwilling to employ Americans to drill on American soil???

The answer is obvious to anyone not blinded by partisan loyalty. Biden wants to destroy the United States as a free, capitalist Republic so he and his Democrat ilk can build it back as a socialist utopia - with them in charge, of course.

Biden also wants Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to increase their oil production. But so far both nations are refusing to do it because they're angry that Biden is trying so hard to reimplement a nuclear deal with Iran that would, despite the stated goal, allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon unimpeded. Our Middle Eastern allies don't want that. But Biden is running full speed ahead without regard to what is best for our allies; and for that matter, without regard for what's best for the United States or planet Earth.

Biden and his team are, of course, lying about the reasons gas prices are so high. When White House Correspondent Peter Doocy asked Jen Psaki about the possibility of Biden reversing his executive orders that have severely restricted domestic oil production, she responded with the false claim that America is producing a record amount of oil.

She said "To be very clear, federal policies are not limiting the supplies of oil and gas to the continent... We are one of the largest producers with a strong domestic oil and gas industry. We have actually produced more oil. It is at record numbers. And we will continue to produce more oil. There are 9000 approved drilling permits that are not being used. So the suggestion that we are not allowing companies to drill is inaccurate."

No, Jen. What is inaccurate is the bald-faced lie you told. The U.S. is NOT at a record level of domestic oil production. But of course, the propaganda press that spews fake news that favors Democrats repeated her lie without fact-checking it as they would have if it was a Republican's press secretary who told such a blatant lie.

How do I know the United States is NOT at record domestic oil production? Because I looked up the historical data at the U.S. Energy Information Administration's website. It took me about ten minutes to find the data, cull through it, and then sort the file by production numbers.

Now, if I could do that, why couldn't the Big Media do it? Well, they could. They just didn't want to. Instead they just regurgitated the lies their allies in the Democrat Party spoon-fed them because the activists posing as journalists in today's propaganda press are more interested in electing Democrats than they are about informing Americans. Well, my goal is to inform you of the truth regardless of who that truth hurts or benefits.

And here is the objective truth: record high oil production in the U.S. was achieved in February and March 2020 when the we produced an average of 13.1 million barrels per day. Our current production of 11.6 million barrels per day is 11.4% LOWER than the record high.

So that's the proof that Jen Psaki lied. But don't take my word for it. As Ronald Reagan said, "Trust but verify." Go look it up yourself at https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCRFPUS2&f=W.

Jen Psaki also lied when she said there are 9000 approved drilling permits that aren't being used. That 9000 figure is not the number of "permits." It is the number of "leases."

Four days earlier, she accurately cited 9000 approved oil "leases", but then she changed the word to "permits" five days ago when she lied about domestic oil production. Leases and permits are two different things. But even the accurate citation of 9000 leases was intentionally and grossly misleading.

The American Petroleum Institute explained that "developing a lease takes years and substantial effort to determine whether the underlying geology holds commercial quantities of oil and/or gas," and that "the lengthy process to develop them from a lease often is extended by administrative and legal challenges at every step along the way." The API further explained that Biden's energy policies have "discouraged American energy" because he "halted new federal leasing," "canceled energy infrastructure," "blocked development in parts of Alaska," "entertained new taxes to punish the U.S. energy industry," and "chilled future investment by signaling that oil and gas wouldn’t be part of America’s future energy mix.

How has Joe Biden stifled domestic energy production? On the day he was inaugurated, Biden issued an executive order he claimed was for "protecting public health and the environment and restoring science to tackle the climate crisis." That was, of course, typical Democrat diversion and deception. A more accurate description would have been "to increase gasoline prices, destroy the American oil industry, kill American jobs, end America's energy independence, imperil the U.S. economy, and jeopardize our national security; all under the guise of saving us from the non-existent threat of anthropogenic climate change."

In that executive order, Biden halted new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters, imposed a moratorium on all activities of the federal government pertaining to oil and gas exploration in ANWR, canceled the permit to construct the Keystone XL Pipeline, prioritized the “social cost of carbon” when developing America's energy policies, and voided ten executive orders Trump had issued that helped make America energy independent.

A week later, he signed another executive order that further elevated "combating climate change" over energy independence. A federal court subsequently ruled that some of what Biden ordered was unconstitutional. But the polices that remained had a devastating impact on the U.S. energy industry.

Biden's administration also directed financial regulators to impose new rules on “climate-related financial risk” designed to starve the oil industry of the capital needed to expand. At Biden's direction, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said it would start requiring a climate change impact study before approving any oil infrastructure permits. That raised the cost of oil exploration and extraction to the point of making many existing leases unprofitable. It also hindered new investment in oil exploration and extraction even with today's current high oil prices.

The direct result of those policies is domestic oil production far below what it was under Trump and far below what it would be if Biden had not restricted it. The overall tenor of this administration's clear hostility to oil has further suppressed domestic production and increased prices.

If Biden hadn't restricted drilling for oil and natural gas in America, we could make up a lot of the supply shortfall caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But we're no longer in a position to do that. And that is absolutely the direct result of Joe Biden and his Democrat ilk intentionally harming the U.S. energy industry in pursuit of their wind and solar fantasies.

Despite Biden's claims and those of his press secretary, he continues to impede American oil exploration and production. That didn't happen by accident. Those policies were not randomly implemented. They were not imposed out of ignorance because no one is that ignorant. Biden deliberately imposed those policies knowing full well they would cripple American oil production and end America's energy independence while increasing our dependence on foreign oil, much of which is controlled by America's enemies. Maybe the solution is to sell Alaska back to Russia. Then Biden would want to drill for oil there. That was a joke, Joe. DO NOT sell Alaska back to Russia.

Joe Biden has purposely chosen to destroy our oil-based economy while at the same time strengthening the economies of our adversaries. It is so obvious that, if you don't see it, it is because you are a partisan hack who loves Joe Biden more than you love America. And perhaps worse than that, you are an ignoranus (spelling intended) who prefers to believe proven lies over proven facts.

Biden claims he wants to isolate Russia to punish Putin for his invasion of Ukraine. But his energy policies are actually helping Russia. And don't think the embargo he announced this week will hurt Russia. It won't. There are plenty of other countries that will purchase their oil. And the reason those countries won't also stop buying Russian oil and natural gas is because they've become so dependent upon them that they can't stop.

Democrat energy policies weaken America, strengthen our enemies, and endanger the economic health of the West. Because contrary to the fantasy world Democrats want to live in, in the real world, we cannot meet our energy needs with flower power and butterfly farts. We need fossil fuels. There is no current alternative. Nuclear would be helpful, but Democrats oppose that too. Democrats oppose everything that would strengthen America. And they support actions that strengthen our enemies.

With the mid-term elections looming just over the horizon, Democrats are trying to blame Putin for our high gas prices. Don't fall for it. Blame for today's record high gas prices must be placed exactly where it belongs - at the feet of Uncle Joe. Because of Biden's deliberate actions, America is no longer capable of being energy independent. And that dependency means we're at the mercy of foreign events and the whims of our adversaries.

Unless Joe Biden revokes his anti-oil executive orders that caused today's supply shortage, prices will remain very high. And he will not revoke those orders. That's why Democrats are desperately trying to make you blame Putin for what you're paying at the pump by calling it "Putin's Price Hike." But that's just deceptive marketing to hide the fact that it was Biden not Putin who raised gas prices by more than 50%. It is not Putin's Price Hike. It is Biden's Price Hike.

Although the president doesn't set the price of gas, his policies certainly move it. Biden's policies have intentionally moved it significantly higher. His so-called "War on Climate Change" is actually a war on American wallets; a war on American jobs; a war on American energy independence; a war on American national security; and a war on America. It's disgraceful. And dangerous.

And so are the Democrats and the so-called "news" media's who are lying about it.