Send Lawyers, Guns and Money

By Stephen Macaulay

According to the American Revolution Institute of the Society of the Cincinnati, “At the beginning of the Revolution, the army relied on soldiers to bring weapons from home, including hunting guns, militia arms and outdated martial weapons from the French and Indian War.”

Pop Quiz: What Was the French and Indian War?*

One of the weapons that was widely used in the Revolutionary War was the Long Land Pattern Musket, a.k.a., “Brown Bess.”

According an article on the smoothbore muzzleloader in the Revolutionary War Journal, the weapon was three feet, eight inches long and weighed approximately 14 pounds. Not the sort of thing that could readily be concealed, were one so inclined.

Apparently the gun wasn’t particularly accurate. The author of the Revolutionary War Journal story, Harry Schenawolf, writes, “Major George Hanger, an authority at the time, declared that when ‘firing at a man beyond a hundred and fifty yards one might as well fire at the moon.’”

Pop Quiz: How Far, in Yards, is the Moon from the Earth?**

Schenawolf goes on to write about the Brown Bess in action, which is worth quoting at length:

“Fast, not accurate firing was required of the British soldier standing in long ranks while facing the enemy at a hundred yards over an open field. The average soldier was expected to release three volleys per minute; four was exceptional. After the first volley, troops usually took from twenty to thirty seconds to reload. Upon loosing the second volley, they would reload and the third volley would occur a minute after the first. Defending troops were expected to release two volleys in the twenty-some seconds it would take their enemy to cover a hundred yards at a dead run. The second volley would hopefully be fired at less than thirty yards.”

So it was the Brown Bess that was the firearm of choice when these words were written in the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There are those who argue what is called the “individual right theory,” which has it that because of the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” the State can’t unduly interfere with one’s gun ownership.

There are those who argue what is called the “collective rights theory,” which has it that personal weaponry is primarily for purposes of a “well regulated Militia.”

Pop Quiz: What Is Wrong with the Phrase at the End of the Preceding Paragraph?***

I would like to propose the “Brown Bess theory,” which has it that the Framers had no idea, clever though they may have been, probably couldn’t have imagined something like an AR-15, which is apparently not accurate (but probably better than the Brown Bess), but which, according to the site Sharpshooter Academy can fire “as fast as someone can pull the trigger (anywhere between 45-60 rounds per minute). If a Brown Bess could fire three rounds per minute, then it would take 20 minutes to get off 60 rounds (although the barrel of the musket would have been exceedingly hot, so that wouldn’t like happen).

So if we’re going to interpret the Constitution in a way that goes back to what the Framers knew, then let’s put it in the context of the Brown Bess.

This is not about taking people’s guns away. It is about looking at the availability of what are arguably weapons of mass destruction that are too readily at hand for hands that they don’t belong in.

*No, it wasn’t the French fighting Indians. It was the French fighting the British—about the upper Ohio River Valley—with the Indians fighting along with the French (and some with the Brits). It began in 1754 and ended in 1763 in favor of the Brits, and given costs borne by the colonists, this was a factor that led to the American Revolution. People who harken to the rights they find in the Second Amendment should be required to know from whence it came.

**No one who doesn’t work at NASA ought to know the answer to this one—420,464,000—but given the absurdity of what passes for knowledge in some parts of Congress, the silliness of this is at least benign, not potentially deadly.

*** “well regulated” form a compound adjective, so there should be a hyphen between the two words, which I point out because there tends to be a lot of questioning about the commas in that sentence. Clearly the Framers weren’t necessarily masters of grammar. 

A Revolution in Arms: Weapons in the War for Independence - The American Revolution Institute

Loading and Firing a Brown Bess Musket in the Eighteenth Century – Revolutionary War Journal

Demystifying The AR-15 - (sharpshooteracademy.com)

_____
Email comments to editors@thehustings.news

We Debate the Second Amendment and Guns

By Todd Lassa

Tighter gun regulation was on President Biden’s agenda even before two mass shootings — which occurred less than a week apart -- fueled familiar rhetoric from both sides of the argument. But “gun control,” a term The New York Times editorial columnist Frank Bruni suggests should be abolished from advocates’ vocabulary, is not at the top of Biden’s priorities. The president indicated in his first press conference, March 25, that he would have to take a pragmatic approach to his agenda while dealing with a Democratic majority in the Senate so slim that his party can’t afford to lose one of its members, let alone subject bills such as the two passed in the House (one on strengthening gun licensing, the other background checks) to filibuster. 

Following the March 16 deaths of eight people at Atlanta-area massage parlors, and the March 22 deaths of 10 people at a Boulder, Colorado, supermarket, pro-regulation Democrats and Second Amendment absolutist Republicans in the Senate took to familiar arguments. 

Politicians need to “offer more than thoughts and prayers” for survivors of the mass shootings, said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-IL; To which Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX, responded that he will not apologize for “thoughts and prayers.” 

Standard arguments come down to a pro-gun regulation side that says that better licensing and background checks could stem fatalities in what is the most heavily armed first-world country in the world, while pro-Second Amendment advocates say the problem is lack of enforcement of existing laws, and that mental health issues, and not firearms, must be better-regulated. The “slippery slope” argument that a bit of gun regulation will eventually lead to full-on bans underlies Second Amendment absolutists’ point-of-view.

While gun regulation advocates point to the “outdated” wording that the Second Amendment allows firearms for a “well regulated militia,” the other side argues that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia settled the matter in writing the majority opinion in the District of Columbia vs. Heller, in which a Washington police officer challenged a District law that would have prohibited him from keeping a gun in his own home.

The amendment’s wording “in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization,” Scalia wrote for the 5-4 majority in the 2008 ruling. 

The National Rifle Association, which usually responds to events like those in Atlanta and Boulder with a full-throated support of gun ownership,  reacted to the uproar over the latest mass shootings only by repeating, on its official Twitter account, that “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed.”

This time, another favorite NRA argument, that “a good guy with a gun” is the best way to solve the problem of “a bad guy with a gun” was not raised. Among the 10 victims in the Boulder supermarket shooting was Officer Eric Talley.

_____
Email comments to editors@thehustings.news

An Appeal to Reason, and Reasonable Gun Control

By Andrew Boyd

First off, I’d like to suggest we set aside absolutism in order to have a meaningful discussion around gun rights. There are few if any ways in which appeal to absolute rights are useful. We have the right to free speech, but it has its limitations, most notably the incitement of violence. I have some problems with that one, in that speech of one does not equate to action of another, and people with agency (that is, people), are responsible for their actions as individuals, but I can understand the argument for such a constraint. Collectivism or socialism is another hot one. In reality, we practice collectivism in many areas of law, regulation and economic cooperation. The argument revolves around how much collectivism and at what cost to liberty.

Such is the debate around gun control. Few people will argue that the Second Amendment prevents the government, the collective, from placing constraints on the individual. You can’t own a tank, a missile, a bazooka, or a mortar. These are arms, but not something that, collectively, we feel would be of net benefit to the polity in the hands of private citizens. So, the right to bear arms does not appear to be absolute as we practice it today.

Second, let’s abolish terms that serve no purpose but to obfuscate, namely “military-style assault weapons.” No one has ever made a reasonable attempt to define these terms. An AR-15 is a military-style weapon in aesthetics only. It’s one of hundreds of types of semi-automatic long rifles that offer the same levels of lethality to the user, regardless of their appearance. It does not have selectable burst or fully-automatic fire, as does an M-14 military rifle. If you want to ban the AR-15 on any objective standard, you’re banning all semi-auto long rifles. If that’s your poison, so be it. A bolt-action rifle is plenty good for hunting. What about semi-automatic single action handguns, whose lethality is not so much different given a bullet of similar caliber? Yes, less velocity and long-range accuracy, but more easily concealed. 

What about capacity, then? We can decide on capacity limits as a function of lethality, which seems not all that intrusive to me. Six, eight, 10? Somewhere in there is fine with me. My line, as pertains to 2A, is my capacity to mount a defense against a home invader. My Glock 17 with single stack magazine, holding eight rounds, and the capacity to exchange magazines with relative alacrity is sufficient to me, as is my Remington 12-gauge shotgun with a seven-shell capacity. 

As to the rules for buying a gun, I’m all for criminal background checks and the closing of any loopholes that allow the avoidance of same. And if you want a federal gun registry, that also doesn’t seem all that unreasonable to me. I’ll go further and suggest it wouldn’t be a terrible thing for someone purchasing a gun to have demonstrated some level of proficiency in handling, safety and use, much like we require with a driver’s license. 

Will any of that substantially reduced incidents of gun violence? I don’t think so. Will it reduce the capacity of individuals to protect themselves and their property? Also, not substantially to my mind. So, will it have changed anything? I’m afraid not, but I’m prepared to accept these as reasonable constraints on my Second Amendment rights. Is that enough from the leftist perspective? I can’t really answer that definitively, but I suspect that what the left is really aiming for is the complete abolishment of guns held legally, and that I feel is only giving criminals greater freedom to steal, rape, maim and kill.

Add in defund or defang the police, unsubstantiated claims of systemic and widespread racial animus in policing, and the selective application of red-letter law, as I believe we’re seeing now in the investigative and prosecutorial actions of law enforcement with respect to the awful, terrible January 6 Capitol Hill incursion and the BLM/Antifa summer of mayhem, and you’re getting perilously close to a hill I’m prepared to die on.

Leftists must decide on what principals they stand, as must we all.

_____
Email comments to editors@thehustings.news

Relearning American Humanity

By Michelle Naranjo

In a small community on the steps of Pennsylvania coal country, there is a rumor being spread via social media that an empty decommissioned hospital slated for destruction due to the presence of asbestos and black mold is being kitted out with new beds and will soon become housing for immigrants making their way into the U.S. 

The initial report of this came from someone who claims a cousin delivering the beds to said hospital enquired about the activity, and a worker allegedly told him of the plan. The comments on posts about this range from residents ranting about Biden "opening the border," to those who believe that the migrants will bring the "China virus" with them, to a few who find the less-than-kind reactions racist and cruel. 

To be clear, migrants reaching the border tested for Covid-19 have a less than 6% positive rate. Legal residents in the border states, save California, are not faring as well. Texas is at 9%, New Mexico is at 8%, and Arizona is at 11%. 

Sadly, rumors of this kind are in every state of the U.S. and are just a sign of the poor communication around the growing migration from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

Meanwhile, Biden and senior staff members are gunfire-at-the-feet dancing to avoid referring to the surge of migrants at the border as a crisis, and Republican critics are taking the opportunity to use the rising numbers to slam the nascent administration as a failure. The administration isn't doing itself any favors by rallying around the narrative that the growing crisis is the previous administration's fault. 

Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, following a visit to the El Paso, Texas U.S. Customs and Border Protection processing center as part of a bipartisan congressional tour, has called on the Biden administration to be more transparent with Americans about what is happening at the border. 

While there is much to be gained by being honest with the media and citizens, it would also be an opportune time for Biden et. al. to reiterate America's humanitarian tradition and take a giant step towards reviving it.

Biden has only been in office long enough for one month of border statistics to come to light, but setting the tone now is imperative. Allowing a humanitarian crisis to dissolve into disinformation and rumors amid the ongoing turmoil of over 500,000 deaths from COVID-19, a year of massive unemployment, and a timbre that is no longer keeping the racist undertones of the U.S. quiet. 

Rescinding the policy of returning migrant children traveling alone encountered to the other side of the border was the right thing for Biden to do. So is sending assistance to the countries losing their citizens to migration because of strained economies, weather-related disasters, political corruption, and drug and gang-related violence. Biden needs to give the press and American citizens an ongoing and clear explanation of why it is in our best interest to protect migrants at risk since so many of us seem to have gone dark on what it means to have the U.S. act a leader in human rights. 

_______
Email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

Enduring Immigration Issue: Can it be Fixed?

By Todd Lassa

Four-and-a-half years ago, candidate Donald J. Trump promised that if he were elected president, he would “build the wall” on the Southern border, and “make Mexico pay for it.” President Trump ended his single term in office with about 365 miles of new fence that replaced existing dilapidated and outdated fencing, about 40 miles of new primary wall, plus 33 miles of secondary wall where there was none before, factcheck.org reports, quoting the Customs & Border Protection service. This means 73 miles new build. The price tag is an estimated $15-billion. Mexico paid for none of it.

Now President Biden is actually negotiating a own border deal with Mexico. The U.S. is offering excess supply of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in exchange for Mexico “moving to help the U.S. contain a migration surge along its southern border,” The Washington Post says, citing “senior officials” from both countries. (The U.S. also will extend the vaccine deal to Canada, though obviously without any quid pro quo on help with border security.)

The deal is being negotiated as the Biden administration tries to stem the flow of children and teenagers trying to cross the U.S. border from Mexico and other points south. Biden signed numerous executive orders his first few days in office to reverse President Trump’s strict border control measures.

Republicans are quick to connect this latest crisis to Biden’s laissez-faire immigration policy and reversal of Trump executive orders. Immigrant children are arriving at the southern border without their parents. Under the Trump administration, more than 600 children and teenagers were separated from their families as their parents were thrown out of the U.S. in 2018, explicitly to deter illegal immigration.

On Monday, March 15, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-CA, led a bi-partisan delegation to the border at El Paso, Texas, to call attention to the latest flood of illegal immigrants trying to cross the border, a scene that Democrats criticized as a “photo op.”

The numbers of immigrants amassing at the border has, indeed, reached its highest monthly level, NPR reports, since 2019. Immigrants are flowing north primarily from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, NPR reporter Carrie Kahn said, fleeing “high levels” of violence, gangs and poverty, with promises made by human smugglers, while relatives already in the U.S. advise on whether they can find jobs here. The Biden administration seeks $4 billion in aid for these countries to spend on police training and judicial reform.

Proponents of a comprehensive immigration and asylum plan lament legislation proposed during George W. Bush’s and Barack Obama’s administrations, neither of which had a chance to make it through the Senate. Obama’s proposal was essentially an updated variation of the Bush plan. 

Now, following an administration that sought to heavily restrict immigration via executive orders and to appease American workers fearful for their jobs, instead of the traditional Republican constituency of farms and businesses seeking low-cost labor, the Biden administration is working on a new asylum process.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ, and Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-CA, have introduced bills that seek …

•An eight-year path for undocumented immigrants to become citizens.

•Increases in the number of visas issued to immigrants per-country.

•Changing the term “alien” to “non-citizen.”

The House of Representatives began to take up this proposed legislation March 18. A bill offering legal status to “Dreamers” and migrants admitted for humanitarian reasons, Politico reports, passed by 228-197 vote. A bill offering similar protection to about 1 million farm workers -- estimated to be about half the nation’s agricultural workers – who have entered the U.S. illegally passed 247-174. The Senate will be a steeper climb. Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-SC, introduced a bi-partisan immigration bill in early February, but has more recently told Politico he won’t support “legalizing one person until you’re in control of the border.”

_____
Email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

Conservative Arguments for a More Liberal Border Policy

By Bryan Williams

No one likes a line-cutter. No one likes an unlevel playing field. At the same time, no one should like human suffering, families being torn apart, and the denial of that image Americans have of our country as one that welcomes in the tired, poor, and huddled masses yearning to be free.

Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age. Maybe it's the social worker in me and not the former Republican party operative. My thoughts on immigration policy have changed drastically in the last fifteen years or so. I have extended family that have entered the country extra-legally and legally, so I see both sides of this issue. I am also a social worker now, so I cannot deny the price in suffering that is paid for all those seeking to come to America.

This may be a simpleton's breakdown, but how does one's brain tackle such a complex subject? Anyway...here goes:

Dreamers should be allowed to become citizens now. That's only fair.

There should be a pathway to citizenship -- if it takes 8 years, so be it. That seems fair.

There should not be children taken from their parents.

There should be quick, decisive, and respectful investigations into those seeking asylum or those apprehended crossing the border illegally. None of this, "Wear this ankle bracelet and show up to court in 18 months," type of thing. Get real.

There should be accountability by employers -- no one here illegally should be employed.

Enough funds should be allocated to hire and properly train Border Patrol agents, customs officials, social workers, and funds allocated to the courts to efficiently process each person.

Criminal activity should be thwarted. No drugs, guns, or trafficked souls should enter into our country with an innocent pretense of "I just want a job in America," or "I want to reconnect with family."

And lastly, we should all think about the net benefits immigration has for our country. We should welcome people in with love. Of course, this should work for everyone - there needs to be more neighborliness in our lives! But especially those new to our country. By engaging with newcomers, we will help them assimilate faster, so they are not segregated by language and culture. Let's lift our lamps beside our golden door.

_____
Email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

The Burden of College Costs

By Chase Wheaton

Higher education should be one of the key pathways to increased access and opportunity for every American. It should provide people with the prospect of increased knowledge, training, and expertise so they can pursue their passions and positively contribute to their communities without limitation. It should, at the end of the day, be a gateway to a more equitable and just society. Unfortunately, in the United States, higher education has been a gatekeeper for all of those things, and it is past time for that to change.

More often than not, the extraordinarily high cost of a college education in the United States, especially compared with much of the rest of the world, serves to prevent an otherwise qualified person from accessing higher education, or it becomes a massive burden for the person to carry after graduation. In 2017, the U.S. Federal Reserve estimated that the average debt from college is $32,731 per graduate. Couple that tremendous debt with the high interest rates many students are forced to pay on loans from private lenders that can easily double the cost of a college education, and you have many graduates paying off loans well into their 30s, 40s, even 50s.

That seems more than the lack of access and opportunity to me. It’s an explicit barrier that only the wealthy and privileged can possibly overcome. This barrier only serves to increase the divide in the quality of life that exists between different populations in the United States. Aside from the vast majority of jobs in the U.S. that require some level of education beyond high school, even employers who don’t require college are much more likely to hire someone with a bachelor’s degree than someone without. There are all kinds of studies showing how lucrative a college degree can be, often higher earnings of $1 million or more over a lifetime.

From this disparity, the cycle repeats itself, and those with the ability to pay for higher education continue to earn higher wages and have better access to higher-paying jobs, which in turn makes them more financially stable over the course of their lifetime, which then allows them to send their children to a college or university, and on and on through the generations.

I think the solution is incredibly simple: Cut military spending. Take a small portion of the $733 billion annual Defense Department budget and re-allocate it to the U.S. Department of Education. Time and time again, the federal government has defunded the Education Department to help pay for more defense spending, so why not flip that script? The College for All Act of 2017 introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-WA, estimated that the cost of free college to the federal government would be $47 billion a year. That’s just 6.5% of the entire Defense budget.

Budgets and federal spending reveal the priorities and values of an entity or institution, and right now, the federal government is telling us it cares more about the idea of complete global military domination than it does about providing all its citizens with programs and services that would vastly improve the quality of life for millions of people. As long as the federal government can continue to afford to give $733 billion to our military every year, you won’t be able to convince me that they shouldn’t be able to do one-fifteenth of that to guarantee every American access to higher education. 

_____
Email comments to editors@thehustings.news

The Fascination with Free College

By Charles Dervarics

For people of a certain age (read: young), the allure of free college is almost irresistible. At a time when some private universities charge more than $70,000 annually and top public institutions cost $30,000 a year, the entire process may seem daunting to students and their families.

And that’s before even reading about how the “sticker price” may differ from your final cost (like a car negotiation!) or the merits of online and “hybrid” learning during a pandemic.

One thing we do know: Americans already have a lot of college debt. According to the Federal Reserve, 20% of the U.S. population owes a combined $1.5 trillion in education loans. Not surprisingly, low-income students stand the most to lose. As the U.S. Department of Education notes, a low-income student is four times less likely than a wealthier student to earn a bachelor’s degree.

While free college is not in the massive $1.9 trillion stimulus bill, the issue looms as an upcoming flashpoint for Congress and President Biden. The president has proposed tuition-free public college for families earning up to $125,000 a year. In a recent CBS interview, Biden said he could provide that benefit for $1.5 billion, though his staff quickly backtracked and pegged the cost at approximately twice that level.

Part of the challenge is that, similar to K-12 schools, colleges rely not on the federal government but on state and local funds for much of their budgets. College costs also differ greatly by state. As reported by CollegeCalc, the average public college or university in Pennsylvania charged $23,167 last year. In New Mexico, the average was just $6,807. Does higher cost bring higher quality? And knowing the federal government would soon foot the bill for many students, would states cut their own contributions as a result?

Some lawmakers also want to help recent grads who wouldn’t reap benefits from this Biden plan. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, is proposing to forgive up to $50,000 of a student’s loans, while the White House says it’s open to forgiveness of up to $10,000. Help for graduates now navigating the job market is politically popular, with several polls showing strong public support. 

Still another alternative is free community college, so more low-income students might earn a technical credential or associate degree at lower-cost, two-year schools. Biden has talked about this, too, as has First Lady Jill Biden, a community college professor. But here recent data show the devastating impact from a year of COVID-19. Despite low tuitions, community colleges suffered a 10% enrollment decline in Fall 2020, far more than other areas of higher education. Most alarmingly, based on data from the National Student Clearinghouse, freshman enrollment at two-year colleges dropped by a whopping 21%.

When times are bad, community colleges usually do well as the unemployed return to school. But that’s not happening now, perhaps because prospective students lack child care and technology or just don’t like virtual learning.

What’s interesting here is that some states already offer free community college to many students. Tennessee, an early leader, saw an 11% enrollment drop in fall 2020 with African Americans showing notable declines. Leaders cited factors such as economic uncertainty and lack of connectivity and child care. All of which may indicate that, when it comes to education and so many other issues, free isn’t always free.

_____
Email comments to editors@thehustings.news

The Cost of Free College

By Andrew Boyd

To start where Charles Dervarics‘ column concludes, I‘d submit that free is never free, with the possible exceptions of hope, love, compassion and sorrow. So, let’s dispense with the notion of “free college.”  

In the realm of public goods and investments, we don’t say free military might, free infrastructure, or free police protection; but it certainly makes sense to think about education as a public good, although, unlike an interstate highway, most if not all the value of a higher education accrues to the individual in such a way for which free-market mechanisms can account. 

In terms of the mechanism, I’d be more inclined to support tax credits and/or subsidies for higher education with associated economic means testing and requirements for some base levels of effort and achievement on the part of the student, not unlike the kinds of constraints we place upon things like welfare and unemployment, although the erosion now on those constraints, I’d propose, has serious and even dire implications for our social and economic well-being. 

Statistically, Americans with a college degree on average earn twice that of those with a high-school diploma. This, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics for CY2019. Of course, if you increase the supply of something (those with college degrees), the price (wage) is likely to fall, so there is the notion of diminishing returns. Also, there’s strong evidence that many people might derive greater benefit from a vocational degree. It took me 10 phone calls this week to find an electrician who would even respond to my work request, and I’ve yet to even get him to show up. You can’t outsource that value to Indonesia or Lethoso, after all.

Ideologically, if we’re prepared to swallow the moral hazard of yet another social welfare program, a.k.a compelled spending (at the threat of harm, which only the government can do) and all the attendant inefficiencies and market distortions, I think it should at least be accompanied by some strategy that ties back to our national economic wellbeing – a degree in underwater basket weaving not being the same, in this context, as one in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math). 

Finally, let’s not set aside the growing menace of our national spending problem and the increasingly unbearable financial burdens we’re placing upon future generations, which at something like $90,000 of public debt per American, might be thought of as a pretty significant offset to the economic benefits of more education.  At what point, I wonder, do we have “the talk” about how much of America's productivity should rightly be consumed by compelled spending, propped up by a fiat currency and the utter foolishness of modern monetary theory? A column for another day perhaps.

_____
Email comments to editors@thehustings.news

Second-Wave McCarthyism

By David Amaya

Many deceptive and divisive strategies, notably twisted lies, were used to achieve the premise we are faced with today: Voter fraud is a severe problem in U.S. elections. Voter fraud is a big problem, but not in the way GOP leaders would have you believe –the allegations are a sign of corruption. Dissecting our shared reality will lead us to our shared truth. 

Republican elected officials’ vociferous belief that the election is subject to voter fraud is the pot calling the kettle black. In an attempt to admonish Jack Dorsey of Twitter, Ted Cruz asked the founder in November of 2020 whether he had evidence of voter fraud or not. The question came from Twitter’s decision to flag tweets mentioning voter fraud as misleading during the election season. The Texas senator fails to recognize that he, and the other proponents of the Big Lie (the false belief that voter fraud stole the election from Donald Trump), is that they are guilty of the very charges they place on others. Before questioning whether Dorsey has evidence that there is no voter fraud when he tweets of voter fraud as misleading, Cruz ought to ask himself whether his allegations of voter fraud are grounded in truth. If not, would he hold himself accountable to the degree he would Twitter? The Supreme Court of the United States, and every court below it, rejected the pernicious lies spewed by Republican leaders. What we’re seeing is the spearhead of voter suppression. 

If Republicans were serious about voter fraud, they would disown the 45th President. How did the former president expect to find 11,780 votes in Georgia but without voter fraud? What Trump requested from Georgia’s Attorney General, Brad Raffensperger, goes far beyond the act of voting out of your precinct or ballot harvesting (purported sources of massive voter fraud). Trump asking Raffensperger to “find” 11,780 votes is not conjecture like the Republicans' allegations. It is a substantiated severe attempt of voter fraud by Republican leaders against American voters.

We now face more than 250 bills in state legislatures meant to make it harder to vote because of this Big Lie. Most of these “anti-voter fraud” bills would affect non-Republican non-Caucasian voters in urban areas the most. The Republican Party is very close to being considered the cognoscenti of voter suppression. Acting out from lies is a sign of conspiracy. More so, passing off these fraudulent allegations as reality to Republican constituents is a red flag of an abusive relationship (see “gaslighting”).

The Republican’s mascot (if we accept their leaders’ falsities of the safest, most diverse, and highest turnout election) should change from the elephant to a snake eating its tail. 

The claims of voter fraud are not only wrong, but they are also deranged. How can someone decry voter fraud and commit to it both at once? The discrepancy is confusing and shows why the Republican party needs leaders with competency dedicated to honesty and transparency to their constituents. Accepting any less will perpetuate our house divided; a dangerous strategy to achieve control of our government has led to our Civil War over state rights. We should know better. 

History is sure to look unfavorably upon our recent allegations of widespread voter fraud. The last time we had a large-scale campaign that used conjecture disguised as truth as its primary political change tool was the Red Scare of the mid-20th century. The use of baseless allegations as a catalyst to achieve some political end that goes against truth has a term in America: It’s called McCarthyism. 

_____
Email comments to editors@thehustings.news

Voter Fraud or Voter Suppression?

By Todd Lassa

Should the state of Arizona throw out entire ballots cast outside a voter’s assigned precincts, and should it be allowed to restrict collections of ballots by third parties? Those are the questions the U.S. Supreme Court considered Wednesday in arguments for Brnovich vs. Democratic National Committee, and Arizona Republican Party vs. Democratic National Committee. 

The question the Supremes will attempt to answer when the court issues its rulings in the two cases by summer could set a standard for “determining whether a majority would coalesce around a standard for determining whether voting laws and practices violate Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act” of 1965, Amy Howe writes in SCOTUSblog.

The Arizona legislature’s ban on collecting ballots, commonly known as “ballot harvesting,” goes back to 2016. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down the out-of-precinct policy (the Brnovich case) and the restriction on ballot harvesting (Arizona Republican Party vs. Democratic National Committee) as violations of Section 2, which prohibits state ballot rules “that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups,” and is one of the only provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act with no expiration date. 

SCOTUS in 2013 ruled in Shelby County vs. Holder that Section 5 of the VRA was no longer necessary. That provision required a freeze on voter laws enacted by certain states and municipalities with a history of discrimination (as in Shelby County, Alabama), subject to administrative review, or by the U.S. attorney general (such as Eric Holder in the Obama administration) or in a lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 

Brnovich vs. Democratic National Committee seeks to overturn the appeals court’s rule against legislation that requires an entire ballot, even the votes for state and national races, to be discarded if it was cast in the wrong precinct. The DNC argues that the state provision discriminates against native Americans living in rural and desert areas in Arizona who may have trouble reaching their designated polling place, while attorneys for the state’s attorney general, Mark Brnovich, a Republican, say it affects very few people in such sparsely populated areas, and is designed to prevent fraud in more densely populated areas where precincts are closer together. 

Democrats are more typically concerned about voter suppression in crowded urban areas where the majority tends to favor their party. Much of ex-President Trump’s gripes about the November 3 election were the result of late-counted votes in cities like Milwaukee and Philadelphia that came in after 3 a.m. and flipped the tally from his early lead for Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, for example, that came from counting sparse rural areas first.

In Tuesday’s hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts noted the 2005 report on federal election reform from a commission led by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, which “said that absentee ballots are the largest (source) of potential voter fraud” and recommended eliminating party workers picking up and delivering ballots. 

Jessica Amunson, attorney for Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, argued that minority voters in Arizona “rely disproportionately on ballot collection,” according to the SCOTUSblog report, and that the state was trying to limit “participation of Hispanics and Native Americans, in particular.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Arizona Republican Party attorney Michael Carvin why his client was at all interested in keeping the anti-ballot-harvesting law on the books.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling “puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” Carvin responded. “Politics is a zero-sum game, and every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretations of Section 2 hurts us. It’s the difference between winning an election 50 to 49 and losing.”

The Brennan Center, a left-leaning organization, tracks voting legislation across the country and reports as of February 19, 2021, legislatures in 43 states have carried over, pre-filed, or introduced more than 250 bills that would make it harder to vote – more than seven times the number of restrictive bills as compared to roughly this time last year.” The bills most likely to pass are in Republican-majority state houses, and the connection to President Trump’s repeated warnings months in advance that he could only lose re-election if there is widespread voter fraud is obvious.

The most high-profile example of such legislation is what Georgia’s Republican-led General Assembly passed Monday evening, just four months after Joseph R. Biden became the first Democrat since 1992 to take the state’s Electoral College votes, and two months after Democrats won runoff elections for the U.S. Senate.

Georgia’s legislation, which must still pass the state’s Senate, requires additional identification for absentee voting, restricts ballot drop-boxes and limits weekend days for early voting prior to election day. Democratic opponents consider the latter provision extraordinarily discriminatory because it would restrict voting after church hours on Sundays, a tradition in the Black community known as “souls to the polls.” According to The New York Times, about 88% of Black voters chose Biden over Trump, and more than 90% of Black voters chose Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff for the two Senate seats, thus giving that party control of the chamber.

To counter Republican efforts to tighten voting procedures, the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday, March3, passed HR 1 along party lines, with all 220 Democrats voting in favor to 210 Republicans’ opposed. The For the People Act, designed to restore and strengthen original provisions of the 1965 VRA, seeks to require automatic, same-day and online voter registration, restore voting rights to citizens with prior convictions, strengthen the mail-in voting system and institute nationwide early voting. It complements the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which proposes a new formula to replace the pre-clearance formula Shelby County vs. Holder removed so “states that have repeated voting rights violations over 25 years need special permission to change rules.”

Former Vice President Mike Pence criticized HR 1 in his first commentary Wednesday for The Heritage Foundation’s e-newsletter, The Daily Signal, as an 800-page election overhaul “that would increase opportunities for election fraud, trample the First Amendment, further erode confidence in our elections, and forever dilute the votes of legally qualified eligible voters.” The bill’s single goal, Pence continues, is “to give leftists a permanent, unfair, and unconstitutional advantage in our political system.”

The House passed the John Lewis Act last year, but then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused a single hearing on the bill. Democrats will need to kill the legislative filibuster to have any chance to pass either bill in the Senate this session, and their success or failure in the upper chamber almost certainly will affect each party’s success or failure in the 2022 and 2024 elections. 

_____
Email comments to editors@thehustings.news

Elections Need Safeguards

By Bryan Williams

Let’s face it, last November’s election was odd. Ballot harvesting, ballot drop boxes that were official and unofficial, same day voter registration, early and extended voting, and claims of widespread abuse, conspiracy, and fraud by Donald Trump and most of the Republican Party made it so. I am not saying that there was widespread fraud (though I am sure there was some - elections are a human enterprise and are never perfect), I’m saying it was odd.  Several oddities did occur, and now there are a rush of bills in several states to try and make our elections less odd.


As a Republican, I believe that voting should be open and easily available to every American who is legally able to vote. I am even for expanding the times polls are open to make it easier for folks to show up and vote.

For the first time in my working life, I was not able to make it to the polls during the regular Tuesday hours in 2020 because I had to work and there was no way I could get to my precinct before it closed. So I personally delivered the ballot I received by mail before election day to the only authorized and official ballot drop box in my county, the one inside the county building downtown. I sympathize with those voters who work on Election Day and can’t make it. In California, by law your employer is to give you one hour to vote during your work day. Even this provision didn’t make it possible for me to vote in-person on election day, so I understand we must give voters alternative ways and dates to turn in their ballots.


But would I have turned my ballot over to a stranger or an organization, especially a political party? I used to be a part of my local Republican county committee. No way, not ever, would I relinquish my ballot to anyone other than a poll worker, or at the elections department downtown. Ballot harvesting is ripe for abuse and should be prohibited or at least reformed in a way that allows for strict accountability.

Same-day voter registration is another bad idea. Consider it practically, instead of ideologically. Do you really expect a government agency to be able to efficiently and appropriately process your voter registration the very same day you vote? I bought a car in August of 2020, and I didn’t get my license plates or registration card until the middle of December. I received the bill for next year’s registration before my actual plates arrived! Just like folks should be given more time to vote outside of Election Day, election workers should be given more time to process registration cards to ensure it’s a real person signing up and assigned to the correct precinct.


Voting is a right. It should be easy. But make it secure and minimize the number of hands that handle a ballot – the voter, and the local elections officials.

_____
Email comments to editors@thehustings.news

Dangerous Make-Believe

By Stephen Macaulay

It is absolutely appropriate that CPAC was held in Orlando, the city that has even surpassed Anaheim in its association with the Magical Kingdom. Walt Disney World is the most popular amusement park on earth, with some 58-million annual visitors. . .a number that collapsed as a result of COVID-19. However, given the reaction of an audible number of attendees who booed the announcement at CPAC that because they were in someone else’s facility they had to follow that host’s rules, and the rules included wearing masks to help mitigate the potential spread of the virus, they probably wouldn’t mind a ride on Splash Mountain, even if they were doused in foul water.

Mask-free or die.

It is all too easy to see the cartoonish golden statue of Donald Trump that was made — where else? — in Mexico, a statue that had CPAC attendees posing with just as they would with Mickey, in relation to a cautionary tale from Exodus 32: 1-6. The worship of an idol. Aaron had told the Israelites that the golden calf had delivered them from Egypt. It didn’t.

And Trump has delivered his people from what?

There are some 10.1-million people unemployed in the U.S. right now.

There are some 512,000 dead Americans — Americans — from COVID-19.

Did that Golden Idol cause the unemployment, cause the deaths?

Look at it this way: Both started under his watch. He claimed the former was going to “just disappear.” He made mask-wearing a political, not a medical, thing. He knew that a bad economy wasn’t going to be good for his brand, so despite advice to the contrary, he claimed COVID wasn’t a big deal, which led to more people getting sick, more people dying, and more businesses going out of business.

Chant though they might, it doesn’t change the facts. But facts are, as we’ll see, troublesome for some people.

///

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was born in New York City. She was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018, representing the 14th congressional district, which encompasses part of the Bronx, Queens and Rikers Island. She is a Democrat.

It is about 1,755 miles from the Bronx to Austin, Texas.

When the winter storm that set Texans back, way back on their collective boot heels, Ocasio-Cortez went to work and raised some $5-million for affected Texans.

Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX, went to Cancun.

So what did Ted Cruz do when he spoke at CPAC?

Among other things, made fun of Ocasio-Cortez, who had posted a powerful Instagram Live video predicated on her life experiences and what she experienced during the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6.

Ocasio-Cortez raises $5-million for people far away from her district.

Cruz goes on vacation while the people in his state struggle.

Regardless of what you think of the political points of view of either of these people, ask yourself one thing: Which of the two is a serious leader, someone who would have your back?

Ted Cruz, a man who ended up carrying water for the man who described his wife as being unattractive and who accused his father of participating in one of the biggest crimes of the 20th century, is clearly not serious. Nor does he seem to care about anyone other than Rafael Edward Cruz.

///

The unacronymic name of CPAC is “Conservative Political Action Conference.” It is organized by the American Conservative Union.

Edmund Burke is the father of modern conservatism. Or maybe that should be real conservatism.

Consider this in light of what happened in Orlando:

“But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. Those who know what virtuous liberty is, cannot bear to see it disgraced by incapable heads, on account of their having high-sounding words in their mouths.” ― Edmund Burke

Conservatism is about things like morality, good conduct, a free-market economy, and limited government. And these people are all juiced up about Donald Trump.

How do you square that circle?

///

According to the website for the Missouri secretary of state, Missouri is known as the “Show Me” state for the following reason:

“The most widely known legend attributes the phrase to Missouri's U.S. Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver, who served in the United States House of Representatives from 1897 to 1903. While a member of the U.S. House Committee on Naval Affairs, Vandiver attended an 1899 naval banquet in Philadelphia. In a speech there, he declared, ‘I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me.’”

One way of looking at this is that the people of Missouri believe in facts. That evidence matters more than what people claim.

“I stood up and I said, I said, we ought to have a debate about election integrity, said, it is the right of the people to be heard. And my constituents in Missouri want to be heard on this issue.”

That is what Sen. Josh Hawley, R-MO, said in his CPAC 2020 comments.

Since Trump lost the 2020 election there has been a whole lot of rhetoric about how the “election was stolen.”

Where’s the evidence?

Show me.

///

Kristi Noem, governor of South Dakota, who is rumored to be a potential 2024 presidential candidate attacked Dr. Anthony Fauci at CPAC. 

"As conservatives, we often forget that stories are much more powerful than facts and statistics," Noem said. "Our stories need to be told. It is the only way that we will inspire and motivate the American people to preserve this great country."

It is convenient that she’s not big on facts.

Few would argue that California has been an unfortunate hot spot for COVID-19.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, California has had 8,784 cases per 100,000 people. It has had 131 deaths per 100,000 people.

Of course, that’s a Blue State.

So how is South Dakota doing?

12,693 cases per 100,000 people.

213 deaths per 100,000 people.

Yes, Noem, facts and statistics ought to be avoided in favor of stories because they sure as hell are damning.

_____
Read the full list of CPAC’s presidential candidate straw poll — click on Forum.

It’s Trump’s Party and He’ll Run in ’24 if He Wants to

By Todd Lassa

Judging from the crowd reaction at the 2021 CPAC “America Uncancelled” gathering, and from the large-ish group of the former president’s supporters outside the Orlando Hyatt convention hall, Donald J. Trump has already won the 2024 presidential election, just as he “won” last November. 

“I will continue to fight right by your side,” Trump told the adoring crowd at the beginning of his nearly two-hour speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference. “We’re not going to start a new party. We have the Republican Party. Wouldn’t that be brilliant? Let’s divide our vote. We’d never win again.”

This was the Sunday evening keynote, if that term applies to a speech in which ex-President Trump returned to familiar gripes and lies, specifically a repeat of how he really won a “stolen” election last November.

He called out the U.S. Supreme Court twice, at least, for refusing to hear challenges to the election results, including Texas’ suit against 18 states whose Electoral College votes went to Joseph R. Biden.

He repeated his attacks on Democrats, this time amping up the rhetoric such that they aren’t merely promulgating socialism but full-on communism. Trump slammed President Biden’s “failed” first month in office for many issues, including the dismantling of the former president’s draconian immigration policy and immediate stop on construction of the southern border wall on Mexico, making this policy look like the corollary to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which he spent four years unsuccessfully trying to kill. 

Trump promised to challenge the 10 Republican representatives in the House who voted to impeach him last January (singling out Liz Cheney, the “warmonger” from Wyoming) and seven Republican senators who voted to convict him last month, in their next primaries, and crowed about how his endorsement of Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY, (whose mention garnered a healthy round of “boos”) pushed him to re-election victory.

In the end, former President Donald J. Trump lit up the crowd with this: “We have to have triumph. We must have victory. That is exactly what we will do. We will go on to victory. We’re tougher than they are. We’re stronger than they are.” 

“And then a Republican president will make a triumphant return to the White House,” Trump continued. “And I wonder who that will be. … I wonder who that will be. … Who, who, who will that be.” It wasn’t a question.

It most likely will not be Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX, who appeared in the opening hours of CPAC last Friday to joke about how nice is was to be in Orlando, though “not as nice as Cancun.” 

Cruz did not make CPAC’s straw poll of 2024 presidential nomination candidates, which Trump captured with 55% of the vote, The Hill reports. Florida Gov. Ron De Santis was next with 21%, and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem grabbed 4%. And 95% of CPAC attendees said they want the GOP to continue Trump’s not-consistently conservative populism. (Click on Forum for the complete straw poll results.)

Which raises the question of how much of today’s GOP CPAC represents. Interviewed on CNN after Trump finished to the sounds of The Village People’s “YMCA,” (Fox News followed the speech with highlights of the speech), the ex-president’s national security advisor from 2018-19 and former Fox News contributor John Bolton, described the former president’s speech as “like watching an old movie, very stale … or TV reruns.”

Of Trump’s straw poll showing of 55% Bolton said, “that is a pathetic figure. I would expect 90%. That is an indication of how much he’s fallen already.”

How much has Trump fallen? On one hand, CPAC’s traditional role as representing the right edge of the Republican party could be seen as a misrepresentation of Trump’s continued popularity within the party (several pundits have remarked that Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, has won the straw poll in the past, twice). On the other hand, no former Republican president has ever before bothered to even show up for the event a month after his successor’s inauguration. 

It seems to all come down to what happens in the next 21 months. If Trump’s candidates beat “un-loyal” Republicans in next year’s congressional primaries, and then go on to beat Democrats in the November 2022 mid-terms, Trump might be on his way to a third presidential nomination. If none of that happens, McConnell and the traditional Republicans may prevail. 

_____
Read the full list of CPAC’s presidential candidate straw poll — click on Forum.

CPAC is Bargain Basement Wholesale Politics

By Andrew Boyd

The only thing more stomach-churning, to me, than retail politics is wholesale politics, and CPAC is bargain basement in every respect, with a double dose of bombast and the gross absence of humility or measured speech that infects every corner of the body politic today. Giving it as much ink as I’m about to do here is a thoroughly detestable exercise, but that’s the assignment.

First off, CPAC polls are not terribly predictive of real outcomes, so proceed with caution. Yes, Trump pulled 55% of voters in the straw polling, twice that of second-place finisher Ron DeSantis and 13 times that of third-place Kristi Noem. Trump made it clear that a third-party candidacy is not the offing, for him at least. Blessed be he who refuses to commit political suicide. Trump, being transactional by nature, knows better. 

It’s still Trump’s party, as I’ve previously argued, though one might wonder in what kind of shape Trump will be, physically and psychologically, four years hence, when his likely opponent would be Kamala Harris, who never saw a lie she didn’t consider first in terms of its political utility, which makes her just another D.C. bed bug. 

More likely, to my mind, is a Ron DeSantis-Kristi Neom ticket. Other front runners might include Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley. Challenges from the anti-Trump pseudo-conservative wing of the party would include Nikki Haley and Liz Cheney. As of today, however, I’d say, there is no path to nomination that doesn’t run through Trump. Even swampy swamperton, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, has tacitly acknowledged as much.

More interesting to my mind is the ranking of issues in said polling, with election integrity (62%) running well ahead of more traditional kitchen-table conservative pain points like border security (35%), the economy (32%), gun rights (26%), taxes (22%), national security (20%) and abortion policy (16%). 

For my left-leaning friends, this probably reads as the triumph of misinformation and QAnon-style conspiracy theories. I’m not of the belief that Trump was necessarily denied a landslide victory, but I am not afraid to assert that our election process is a shit show, systemically not up to the standards set forth by the likes of post-war Iraq. Maybe that purple dot thing isn’t a bad way to go, kind of the club stamp of democracy.

Four years may seem a long way off, but it’s really not, and I fear that we’re marching toward a political abyss; that the failure of our politicians to address well-founded concerns surrounding mass mail-in voting, error-riddled voter rolls, the death of voter ID, and the plainly extra-legal actions of state election officials and absence of legal remedy for same (thanks for nothing, SCOTUS) represents an existential threat to democracy and our peaceful co-existence; for if a plurality of the voting population does not believe in the essential propriety of national electoral outcomes, in a country so politically and cultural polarized, the cancer of political violence and mass social unrest will metastasize.

It’s high time that the adults in the room, if they exist, take a step back from the uber-cynical, morally bereft trench warfare of institutional party politics and mainstream media shout fests (yes, I’m including Newsmax and Fox News) and consider how we work together to keep this thing from going altogether off the rails. And don’t look to CPAC or its leftist equivalent for answers. You won’t find any.

_____
Read the full list of CPAC’s presidential candidate straw poll — click on Forum.