by Tim Tapp

  On January 18th, 2022, Stephen Colbert - speaking with Sen. Elizabeth Warren - was venting his frustration with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin. Colbert was angered that these two Democrat Senators voted with the Senate Republicans to protect the procedural "speed bump" known as the filibuster. (For general information purposes only: the filibuster requires that for non-financial bills to pass the Senate (should the filibuster be invoked), 60 "yes" votes, not the simple majority of 51 votes, are needed.) The filibuster rule was created to force the Senate to reach a "truer" consensus that would represent something more than the will of a single political party. It is also intended to help prevent knee-jerk reactionary legislation from moving quickly through Congress without debate and an opportunity to consider the possible consequences of that legislation. Plus, it has the added bonus of protecting minority voices who stand against the bill. Colbert, like a lot of Democrat officeholders, wanted the filibuster out of their way as they looked to pass a bill to set national standards on all elections that they are very deceptively calling a "voter's rights" bill. A rule change to remove the filibuster was needed to pass the voting bill due to total opposition from the Republicans in the Senate. A 50/50 split (not that I believe all 50 Democrats support this nationalization of elections anyway) with a tie-breaker vote from Kamala Harris would not be enough for the Democrats to get their way. So, in his shared leftist frustration, Colbert called for getting rid of the Senate. Putting aside for the moment that even if this bill passed the Senate and were signed by the cognitive decline patient currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (having already passed the Democrat-dominated House), the new law would still face substantial judicial challenges. The U.S. Constitution has made clear that it is up to the states to administer their elections. But more on States and the Senate later. Two questions arise from Colbert's rant, which is certain to become a leftist talking point. "Is the Senate the most anti-democratic institution in our nation?" "Should the Senate be abolished?" 
   Let's start with the first question. Is the Senate the most anti-democratic institution in our federal government? I would make the case that the unelected bureaucracies would win that distinction, so I'm going to say no. The political left keeps whining about anti-democratic features of our government because direct democracy (also known as mob rule) is the easiest way to stir up the public's emotions and, through the masses, get their way. This is also why the United States does not have a democracy but a federated constitutional republic where the federal government is limited, state's rights and minority voices are protected, and safeguards are in place to avoid, or at the very least slow, tyrannical creep. 
   When the U.S. Constitution was written and then later ratified, the idea of a well-defined (and limited) role of each branch and those branches being "co-equal" was considered the simplest way to ensure that checks and balances would work to protect everyone. An extension of that idea was to separate the Legislative branch into two distinct entities with different objectives. Based on the model of the British Parliament with one big difference, the House of Representatives (like the House of Commons) was meant to be directly representative of the general population. The Senate, however, was designed to represent the interests of the states, to protect state's rights against overreach from the federal government. The Framers of the Constitution understood that each state had different needs and populations. They believed that it would be infinitely unfair for states with denser populations concentrated in a few larger cities to make decisions for states with a more rural existence without regard to the wishes of those states. (It would be a lot like taxation without representation if you will.) Not only would it be unfair, but it would also be a disincentive for potential future states to join the union. The U.S. was meant to be a federation of states that were different but agreed on the fundamental reasons for leaving the British Kingdom (mostly individual liberty). Balances between the will of majorities and the rights of minorities were always a focus of the Founders. Without protecting the minorities, there is no such thing as individual liberty. The point here is that the Senate was not created to be particularly "democratic." The first 125 years of the republic, Americans did not vote for Senators. State legislatures elected senators because they were selected to represent the state's interests. The people were electing the members of the House to represent them. It was not until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in April of 1913 that the selection of Senators changed to popular vote. (Many now point to this change as the first major blow against state's rights.) With this in mind, it is, at best, either historically ignorant or disingenuous to expect strict adherence to what Cobert or other leftists would label as "democratic" by any branch of the federal government. But rules designed to protect the minority are only an issue for the left as long as they are not the majority. 
   The second question is perhaps a little more challenging to answer. It becomes more of a matter of opinion. The left might say, "Yes! End the Senate." because they are not getting their way at the moment. (But to be fair, if the political left had their way, they would burn it all down. They are not big fans of the obstacle that the Constitution is for their power grabs.) Some on the right might say, "Yes, get rid of it because it no longer fills the role of protecting state's rights that it was designed to do." In contrast, others on the right might only want to keep it because it is the primary means that the Republicans can slow the so-called "progressives" radical agenda.  
   I would recommend we keep the Senate, but with a caveat. I would prefer a reset that focused Senators on representing the needs of their home states rather than the national party's agenda (no matter how it may affect their home state). If we need to repeal the 17th Amendment to make that happen, then so be it. If that reset is too much to ask for, then I can at least take some comfort in the fact that if someone like Colbert is upset, something is still working, even if it is working for the wrong reasons. ​

By Tim Tapp

​​American Made Refueling Tankers Part of Strategy to Project Strength

Now more than ever, thanks to the projection of weakness in Afghanistan, the United States needs to project strength and produce top-notch defense aircraft.
The platforms that win wars aren't always the platforms that the military or Congress thinks very much about before the shooting starts. Before World War II, for example, the Navy loved battleships and assumed they would be critical in any conflict. As it turned out, aircraft carriers and landing craft proved to be the most important weapons.
Today, people generally think of fighters when they think about airpower. They make movies about fighter pilots; tanker aircraft are generally unheralded. But the military couldn't project force without them. Refueling tankers allow American power to reach all corners of the globe without requiring expensive (and difficult to protect) military bases everywhere.
The United States has always had the best tankers. The United States must always have the best tankers. It's the only way to stay ahead of potential enemies. That makes this moment important.
The Air Force is looking ahead - far ahead. To dominate the skies after 2030, it will have a new generation tanker. To get there, though, it is going to need a bridge. Its current tankers are becoming too old to use, and the Air Force needs a new fleet for the short term.
Luckily, it already has the answer in its fleet. The Air Force plans to buy about 150 more tankers, and it will already have about 180 KC-46 Pegasus tankers in service. So that's an easy decision, right? Just buy more of what you are already using. As Southwest Airways has understood for decades, having one make and model in your fleet helps with maintenance and repair. Southwest only flies 737s, so it only has to train mechanics on one type of jet, and it doesn't have to stock parts for dozens of jets (the way other airlines, which buy planes from multiple makers, do).
The only problem might be if there is, indeed, a problem with the KC-46.
That isn't an issue; the plane is working well and doing what it is supposed to do. To be fair, there has been a slight glitch: when the sun is on the horizon, it can be difficult for the plane's crew to connect the tanker to other aircraft. As military analyst Loren Thompson explains, "the Air Force has recently approved the design of an upgraded vision system that is expected to resolve problems with glare occurring during the 7% of a typical flight day when the sun is low in the sky."
With this problem solved, we can get on with updating the tanker fleet, right? Well, in Washington, nothing is ever that easy. There is one other design that could fill the tanker gap. The French company Airbus peddles a tanker based on its A330 frame. A plan for Airbus to enter an agreement with Lockheed Martin to work on these planes in Alabama is earning support from Alabama's congressional delegation.
However, I believe - and hope that most people would agree - that important national security decisions should not be made based on political pork. They should be made based on national needs. It simply wouldn't make sense to start working a different type of tanker into the fleet. Even if the plane performed flawlessly, crews would need to be retrained, parts would need to be stocked, and mechanics would need to learn the nuances of a new aircraft. (Remember earlier when we talked about Southwest Airways?) 
Also, Lockheed doesn't have a great record of delivering working aircraft. It has spent decades working on the F-35, a combat jet that has never fully delivered during the 20 years America has been at war since September 11. The F-35 is overbudget, underperforms, and based on the fixes that have been offered so far, may never work as intended. 
With the KC-46, Boeing has a dedicated assembly line up and running. Airbus would build its tanker in Europe and then ship it to Alabama to be modified. That might expose military secrets, and it would undoubtedly make it more difficult to make adjustments as the planes were being built. 
The KC-46 is ready to roll off the assembly lines, and we already know it works. There is no sense in trying to open a bidding process for another tanker at this point. Let's get the bridge in place as quickly as possible and then look at the next-generation aircraft. With out-of-control governmental spending going on at a record pace and the misguided foreign policies of the current administration,  this is no time to play politics with national security.

By Tim Tapp 
 
   Joe Biden as a candidate for President of the United States basically issued an open invitation to anyone seeking to enter the U.S. via crossing the U.S. / Mexico border. The message was clear - despite the denials of the Administration - "we are reversing the policies of the orange man who was bad, and unaccompanied minors will be allowed in no matter what." This campaign promise made to people who are not American citizens led to the current disaster that we have been watching unfold even as Biden and company have done their best to keep it out of sight.  
   From the beginning, the Biden administration has refused to acknowledge the extent of the record-setting levels of illegal migration into the states. (Simply referring to it as "a challenge.") Conservative news outlets were quick to call this a "crisis." Many called out the legacy media who seemed ready to give Biden a pass on the same issue they attempted to use to brand Donald Trump as a heartless racist who was personally pulling children from the arms of mothers. Now the question has become, was this part of a plan to funnel taxpayer dollars to associates of Joe Biden. 
   There are many folks who believe the border debacle was intentional for a multitude of reasons ranging from virtue signaling, to far left appeasement, to distraction from efforts to pass bills like HR-1 into law, to good old fashion Cloward & Piven style attacks on our Republic. But until now, there did not seem to be a direct way to transfer tax dollars into the pockets of anyone in the Administration or their associates.  
   Since the border crisis became a major news story that even the legacy media could no longer ignore, Joe Biden has been desperate to find facilities to house migrant families and unaccompanied minors. One of the stopgap measures made by the Administration came in the form of an 87-million-dollar contract to house migrant families in hotels. While not an ideal solution, it might seem to be a humane effort to alleviate the horrific conditions in which many of these illegal migrants are currently being held. It might, that is, until you look a little deeper and start connecting a few dots. Let us connect a few dots and see what questions might pop up. 
   Let us begin with Endeavors - formally Family Endeavors - a non-profit organization that (in their words) provides programs and services towards community, disaster relief, employment, housing, mental health, and veteran family services in the United States. Endeavors is the organization that received the above-mentioned 87-million-dollar contract to place migrant families in hotels. Finding places to house people in need falls into their wheelhouse so, move along, nothing to see here. Right? The first red flag is that the 87-million-dollar contract was awarded as a "no-bid" contract. That is not standard governmental action for this kind of contract. Unless certain exceptions apply, an agency - like ICE, who in this case awarded the contract - must take bids and give the contract to the lowest bidder. The only exception that could be legally allowed for this type of contract would be in the case of an emergency, like disaster relief. ICE would have to provide a "Justification and Approval" document explaining why it did not open the contract to bids. Not doing so would typically result in disciplinary action against the ICE officials who signed the deal, and the contract would be canceled. ICE cited "unusual and compelling urgency" as its reason. This justification led Nick Arama at Red State to ask if Biden and his people are claiming it isn't a crisis at the border, how can it be an emergency to fit this exception? An excellent question. 
   If the justification from ICE is less than convincing, then what other reason might there be for awarding a no-bid contract to Endeavors? The answer may be as simple as Andrew Lorenzen-Strait. On Jan. 20, Inauguration Day, Lorenzen-Strait was named senior director for migrant services and federal affairs for Endeavors, meaning that he would be the organization's liaison to the federal government. Then, less than two months later, Lorenzen-Strait had gotten them the contract. Why does that matter, you may ask. Before accepting the position with Endeavors, Lorenzen-Strait held a significant position on the Biden-Harris transition team – he was on the DHS policy team. He vetted political appointees for the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the care of unaccompanied migrant children while in government custody. Beyond this direct connection to Joe and Kamala, he had previously worked for the federal government as an official with ICE. During his time there, his immediate boss was Tae Johnson, who is currently the acting director of ICE and would have had the final say on the 87-million-dollar contract in question. Claire Trickler-McNulty, another ICE official, was given full authority over acquisitions and contracts (a little unusual given that Trickler-McNulty works outside the office). Trickler-McNulty had also worked for Lorenzen-Strait before he left ICE in 2019. And, just in case you need another layer of Deep State Swampiness, Endeavors’ chief operating officer is Chip Fulgrum, the former chief financial officer at the DHS.  
   There is one other bit of information I would like to offer for your consideration. Endeavors had had contracts with several other federal agencies, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Federal Acquisition Service. But none of them comes close to the size of this one. Most of these contracts were valued at less than $1 million. However, there was one that was valued at $1.4 million. If you have ever been in a business that provides services and relies upon contracts, then you know that $87 million is a giant leap from $1.4 million. You would typically have to have proven your organization's ability to handle a contract of that size. This certainly has the appearance of preferential treatment that is a clear violation of both departmental policies as well as federal law. It is certainly worth taking a closer look.  ​

By Tim Tapp
​
   There is no shortage of events that occur in academia that raise eyebrows for conservatives. The advent of Free Speech Zones and cry closets have been the topic of many conversations and don't get me started on all of the "activities" that are part of "Sex Week" on a number of campuses across the country. But often, the hardest to wrap your mind around can be the choices that colleges and universities make in hiring.
   Even the casual observer has to admit that there is, at the very least, a left-lean in the administrations of institutions of higher learning. Over time a lot of the course work has changed from straight-edge fact-based to "woke" narrative. It is no longer a surprise to anyone that these organizations hire people who will promote their preferred world view. But sometimes, we still see what looks like "hold my beer" actions.
   Back in September of 2020, a few people dared to question Harvard when they decided to tap Chasten Buttigieg (Pete Buttigieg's husband) as a fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics. Chasten is an author and LGBTQ+ advocate with degrees in theater, global studies, and education. The question was asked about his qualifying "political" experience. Still, since the fellow position leads a conversation once a week - not gives a lecture - the issue seems unimportant to the powers that be at Harvard. In mid-October, Texas State University made public their newest political science teacher, Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke. The failed Democratic Presidental candidate who still wants to "come for your AR-15s" is to begin teaching via online class starting in the spring of 2021. Not to be out-done, Georgetown University has hired disgraced former FBI agent Peter Strzok.
   The university lists Strzok as an Adjunct Professor. He will be teaching a course on Counterintelligence and National Security, which explores the theory and practice of counterintelligence as a part of U.S. national security. I suppose from the "Orange Man Bad" perspective, he is a good choice. (At least they are asking him to teach an ethics class.)
   Peter Strzok does have two decades of counterintelligence experience at both an operational and policy level. Georgetown wants this class taught from a practitioner’s perspective, and Strzok certainly checks that box. But shouldn't integrity factor into who is employed to teach young people pursuing a career in law enforcement or national security?
   Peter Strzok engaged in an illicit affair with a married woman, morally questionable but not disqualifying in today's society. He actively used his position in the FBI to affect who would be residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He was too busy work on "an insurance policy" to be bothered with things like Hillary Clinton e-mails discovered on a Carlos Danger, I mean Anthony Weiner laptop. The blatant corruption of acting as a political operative rather than an agent of law and order should be disqualifying. Unless what Georgetown is really hoping to teach is how to weaponize federal agencies against political rivals rather than criminals and terrorists.

​By Tim Tapp
 
   On October 18th, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer was a guest on Meet the Press. Chuck Todd - host and often leftist hack - was told by the would-be despotic ruler of Michigan how all the state economic lockdowns can end and how America can finally move past the horror that has been COVID-19. The long-awaited answer to the devastation brought to America and the rest of the world by the red-death Wuhan bat stew flu??? well electing Joe Biden of course.
   Whitmer told Todd that lockdowns and COVID restrictions could end if Americans would simply elect Joe Biden. She explained to Todd and his audience that Trump does not care about those who have died from COVID. Whitmer tried to convince those who were watching - in an effort to appease those who have been obedient to her tyrannical executive orders - that the real victims of the lockdowns are the "heroes" who are staying closed and staying home indefinitely. The recent target of an alleged abduction also made the charge that Trump - and all of those who wish to get back to living their life - are inciting violence. In short, all the COVID restrictions are because "Orange Man Bad."
   The Queen of Michigan wants you to believe that Trump is to blame for Democrat governors, politicians, and various other operatives keeping their economies locked down. She wants you to ignore that she - along with many other Democrats - has been claiming that masks and distancing can save us all, but that masks are not enough to re-open businesses. She would prefer that you not ask why it is okay to be part of an Antifa or BLM protest but not a Second Amendment or "Open Up the State" rally. Just take her word for it all and blame Trump for all your problems.
   Whitmer, in making her case, went so far as to say, "This is a gravely serious moment for all of us and if you're tired of wearing masks or you wish you were in church this morning or watching college football or wish your kids were in school in person, it is time for change in this country, and that's why we've got to elect Joe Biden." This statement on its face sounds like little more than partisan, political rhetoric. If you were to ignore the obvious facts that it has been Democrats - not Trump - that have tried to keep churches and schools closed, then it might even be a compelling call to action. But you must ignore a lot for it to be effective. (I would like to remind everyone that Biden has committed to a national mandatory mask policy.)
   But what if this is something more than a stump speech supporting your party's candidate in the closing days of a Presidential election? What if, at least for Whitmer, it really is that simple? I would typically point out the flaws of Whitmer's "logic" and move on without playing this "What if" game, but given that we have heard very extortionist-like statements, "give us what we want or your cities will burn," perhaps the question is appropriate to ask.
   Regardless of the rationale in the beginning, have the economic lockdowns that are currently on-going become nothing more than the exercise of political power? Did Governor Whitmer just make a veiled promise to open up if we elect Biden or more of a veiled threat to remain shut-down if we re-elect Trump? Whitmer can only answer for herself and exactly how political the lockdown of Michigan happens to be. She certainly can not speak on behalf of all the other Democrats who maintain their own lockdowns. To me, her statement does sound a lot like an admission of politics rather than public safety. But only Whitmer knows what is going on in her head. Maybe a journalist will ask her. 

By Tim Tapp
​
   America is facing the continuing effects of the COVID-19 global pandemic on both the economy and public feelings of fear and/or frustration, racially-based civil unrest, and the over-the-top political antics of the presidential election season. In the past - feels like the ancient past - the news media would have reported all of the potential scandals and questionable activities of all of the candidates for the highest office in the land. But those days are over, as many in the mainstream media report as if only those with an "R" at the end of their name are capable of behavior that should be questioned or brought to the attention of the American voting public. This is why it is not surprising that a report from the Washington Free Beacon has been largely ignored with a few conservative news outlet exceptions.
   Joe Biden is currently the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for President. Biden has been running what many are calling a "basement campaign," making few public appearances. Democratic operatives claim this is due to COVID concerts and a strategy to step back and let Donald Trump implode (which is what they desperately want the American people to believe). Trump surrogates (and many who have simply been paying attention) vocally assert that it is an attempt to protect Biden from exposing what appears to be declining mental capacity. But clearly, it is also a way of helping the news media in their quest to protect the man they want to move 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue from having to answer questions he may not want to answer. (Remember how long it took to get an official response to the Tara Reade allegations?)
   The Washington Free Beacon report that is being mostly ignored to this point is not as "bombshell" as sexual misconduct claims or as politically damaging as Biden's involvement in Ukraine to protect Hunter should have been. It doesn't even rise to the level of being in a meeting with then "Occupier of the White House" Barack Obama, along with members of the DOJ, when plans to derail the Trump presidency where being made. (After all, that's par for the course these days ... right?) But, the issue exposed in this news story is the kind of reporting that the American people - regardless of how they vote - once cared about very deeply.
   The Biden Cancer Initiative, a nonprofit that the former Vice President established after leaving the White House, spent nearly two-thirds of its budget on staff compensation. A rather large percentage of the operating budget for a nonprofit; in fact, most charity watchdogs recommend twenty-five percent of the budget be spent on administrative overhead and fundraising costs combined. According to Charity Navigator, "spending less than a third of their budget on program expenses are simply not living up to their missions." Is this alone enough to reflect poorly on Biden? If you don't look any deeper, maybe not, but there is more to the story.
   You see, at the Biden Cancer Initiative, salaries made up nearly 65% of its total expenditures. The organization raised and spent $4.8 million over the two years it was in operation, $3 million of that went to salaries, compensation, and benefits, according to 2017 and 2018 tax forms. The Biden Cancer Initiative also spent $1.7 million on other expenses not related to their mission to "develop and drive implementation of solutions to accelerate progress in cancer prevention, detection, diagnosis, research, and care, and to reduce disparities in cancer outcomes," including $740,000 for conferences, conventions, and meetings. Still not worth raising an eyebrow for most political observers, until you look at who has been receiving those salaries.
   The Biden Cancer Initiative's president Greg Simon and it's vice president Danielle Carnival were among the executives who were paid six figures. They also had been a part of the Obama administration's "Cancer Moonshot" program, as were many of the six-figure executives. Some would excuse this as Biden working with people he knows who have "expertise" in the field. However, it does raise the question of if the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's organization allowed associates to profit off their access to Biden. (Not the first time this question has arisen. In fact, one might say it speaks to a pattern of behavior.) 
   Joe Biden has garnered goodwill, as well as cash contributions, in the name of fighting cancer. Biden's son Beau died of brain cancer in 2015 at the age of 46, so Biden would be expected to be passionate about that fight. But then it would appear that he was not a good steward of the resources granted to the Initiative. It would be fair to ask what, if anything, was actually done to fight cancer at the Initiative. If the American people can't trust Biden with private dollars given to combat something that took his son from him, how can he be trusted with taxpayer money (not that he doesn't already have a track-record with taxpayer dollars)?
   It would appear from the outside that to many in the Democratic party and those surrounding him, Joe Biden has ceased to be a person and now is just a brand. A brand that the party can use to advance their goals - and should Biden win in November - to control from behind the scenes. A brand that those around him can latch onto and leech off of to pad their bank accounts. Joe Biden and his wife Jill left the organization's board in April 2019 as he prepared to launch his presidential campaign. The Biden Cancer Initiative suddenly shuttered on July 11, 2019. Was this because without the brand, the dollars stopped coming into the Initiative? Why were these executives at the Initiative, to fight cancer or to cash checks?

By Tim Tapp

​Some people just want to watch the world burn.
  
   The idea that the "majority should decide" has been used by those in power, to appease crowds for some time now. So, the language of democracy has rung sweetly in the ears of people living in Western-value-based nations since the time of the Greek philosophers. But there is a problem inherent in a straight democracy; the majority does rule, and minorities never win the political arguments when they inevitably arise. This rule by the majority always leads to feelings of being ignored and or marginalized for those who are not part of that majority, which leads to frustration and anger over time. That frustration has historically led to the formation of mobs.
   The angry mob is a tool that has been used to overthrow those in power for centuries. Those who would rise up in revolution often are small in numbers - too small to take control on their own - so, to better their odds, they ferment unrest in the larger body of the minorities. The revolutionists fan the flames of division and anger using both the legitimate grievances of the people and using misinformation techniques to exaggerate the plight of the group they wish to nudge to become a mob.
   For that reason, the Founding Fathers of the United States chose to add as many safeguards as they could into the Constitution. Safeguards to protect the rights of minorities from being ignored or overruled by the majority. Safeguards against too much power being placed in one person's hands. Safeguards meant to - at the very least - slow the advancement of tyranny and allow a moral people (they were hoping that would be us) to maintain individual liberty. For that reason, the United States has never had a democracy; we have always had a constitutionally federated republic that included democratic principles in its operation.

But some people just want to watch the world burn.

   The Constitution has worked as a roadblock to those who wish to impose their will on the people who live in this nation. For that reason, many have been working to weaken the constraints of the Constitution since its ratification. Today, those constraints are little more than a speed bump as many elected officials move to impose their wills rather than follow the path laid out by the Framers.
   America has been under assault since its inception. The idea of a nation that can be ruled by its people is dangerous in the minds of some. The notion that government doesn't belong in the daily lives of a nation's citizens is a hard pill to swallow to those who believe that they know better than you how you should live, what you should think, etc. The enemies of individual liberty see the separation between the current government and the Constitution, and they have decided to elevate their attacks and break out that time-honored classic - the angry mob.

Because some people just want to watch the world burn.

   The past few weeks, we have watched as legitimate outrage over the wrongful death of George Floyd morphed into riots, looting, and more wrongful deaths. We have seen all police vilified by the media and by "activists." We have seen places like Seattle give up control over blocks of the city that included homes and businesses (they have finally taken steps to re-establish control). We have watched the toppling of statues of historical figures, which now include the likes of Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt because of the complete lack of historical context. When the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, must be removed in the name of the Woke mob's cancel culture, it is not black lives that matter, it is the erasure of history that is at hand.
   Make no mistake; this is an assault on the republic. It is not for the reasons that the organizers claim. Most of the people involved are well-meaning individuals seeking to address issues where our nation has fallen short. Still, they have been manipulated into becoming part of the angry mob. The unthinking angry mob that only feels rage and where those legitimate grievances are blurred and secondary as the individual has no voice in the crowd is a tool not for justice but revolution. Those who seek justice have been duped into mob-hood by organizations claiming to be one thing but are Marxists trying to end the republic.
   When Nikole Hannah-Jones tweets that it would be an honor to remember these events as the "1619 Riots", she demonstrates her desire to see our republic burned down. When Shaun King tells people that statues of Jesus as "white European" should be torn down because they are a form of white supremacy, he is not encouraging people to come together to solve issues. An agenda is being pursued; a narrative is being engrained into our society. The goal is to end capitalism and abandon the republic, even if many of the people helping push the agenda are unaware of the result of following the path that they are on.

They just want to see the world that has been built burn down because they want to re-make it in their own image.

   Our republic has not always lived up to the principles that we laid its foundations upon, but the United States is the freest nation in the world for all those who reside here. The flaws that are often pointed out by America's critics are not flaws of the systems but the men at the levers of those systems. All humans are flawed, and holding them to an impossible standard serves no purpose (other than to excuse their cancel). The nation has grown, and as it moved forward, those promises in the founding documents have been realized by more and more people. Each day is a step closer to fulfilling the vision of individual liberty for all in a society that does not make judgments based on skin color; a step further down the path began not in 1619 but 1776. 
   Don't let these revolutionaries whip up mobs and erase the history that we share. Don't let them burn down the republic and end the two hundred plus year journey that we have been on together. I can't promise you when all of our societal ills will be remedied (or if they ever will be). But I can tell you that socialism nor communism can ever solve the issues that are dividing us today. A fight for equality, for individual freedoms, can never be achieved in a system that requires you to be a cog in the machine. Remember that true democracy is little more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner, so there are no protections for minorities. That is why we have a republic and not a democracy. Let's keep it and move forward together.