You say you want a revolution, well, you know...

 First, let's bring up a few observations. A CBS News survey found that 51% of a survey sample expected a peaceful transfer of power after the 2024 election. 49% thought the year would end in violence. Surprising? It sure as hell is to me. Seems maybe the events of January 6, 2021 have cast a spell on many. There was plenty of violence in 2024, and it has not abated in 2025. If anything, it's gotten worse. Polling by Politico suggests that Americans are getting accustomed to the threat of political violence. 

Politico has found a majority of Americans believe that the 'assassination culture' will grow and that a high-profile candidate for office will be killed. Just as Charlie Kirk was senselessly killed by a deranged cretin. For the record, most assassinations are committed by deranged cretins, who typically claim some invalid political cause. Truth be told, they themselves don't really know if their political inclinations lie to the left or the right. All they really care about is they didn't agree with what their victim said. 55% of those polled by Politico said political violence will become increasingly common. Most Americans are not aligned with this prospect, but shockingly, nearly a quarter of the poll respondents told Politico that political violence can be justified...

Sorry, I just fell out of my chair, and at my age it took a few moments to get up.  have to make an assumption here, that most of the Politico respondents have some awareness or knowledge of some sort to at least offer a 'valid' opinion. "Political violence can be justified"? It cannot. At no time, anywhere, at any place can it be justified. "Younger Americans were significantly more likely than older ones to say violence can be justified. More than one in three Americans under the age of 45 agreed with that belief." 

So what exactly is leading younger Americans to believe that political violence is justified? According to some sources, almost half of Americans believe America's best days are behind us. Amongst Americans aged 18-24, 55% "agree" that the American dream no longer exists. 52% said that to "make life better in America" we need radical change. The age divide is distinct. Nearly two-thirds of adults aged 24 and younger endorsed radical but unspecified revision to the 'social compact'. Majorities in every age bracket said the same save those over 65. 

I am in no way endorsing Politico's 'polling' but they claim 35% say the US needs a revolution. A view that cuts across party lines, roughly a third of both parties, right and left. It appears that the populist view is now political violence is a revolutionary act. Digging beneath the surface, it would appear that contemporary political violence is more manifested in promoting a political agenda. There seems to be a false presumption that their cynicism is widely shared, when in fact it is not. 

Every generation has its own set of difficulties to overcome, whether they be a result of politics, economics, world affairs or anything else. Life is hard, it was for our ancestors and so it shall be for our great grandchildren. Todays' graduates are struggling with getting good jobs, buying a house, just generally getting a foothold on a good life. Is political violence going to solve, or even improve the situation they face? Or, heaven forbid, assassinate someone you disagree with? Or will it only serve to continue the insanity or perhaps make it worse for themselves and possibly even, their offspring?...

The US and the UK. We now have something miserable in common...

 Immigration has strained Britain to it's breaking point. England is experiencing a virulent sense of frustration that isn't going away anytime soon. Just as we have in America, going back to the beginning of the Biden administration. More than 12 million immigrants were allowed to pass unvetted through our borders during that time. Included in that number were a very large group of violent criminals. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of American lives have been brutally victimized by these violent immigrants. This doesn't even mention the countless lives lost at the hands of these criminals. The Trump administration is doing its level best to rid the country of the vermin, all the while tolerating absurd and often violent protesters impeding the efforts of law enforcement. To Trump's credit, at least the US borders are closed to illegal immigration. England is yet to reach that milestone. 

English citizens are outraged and angry. Justifiably so. London, Manchester and Birmingham are no longer majority English. In 1971, London was 97.7 percent English. By 2021, it is only 36.8 percent English. Manchester was 95.8 percent English in 1971 but only 48.7 precent by 2021. Birmingham was 99.6 percent English in 1951, but only 44.4 percent English in 2021. Astonishing. It gives the phrase "open borders" new meaning...

A former professor of political science at the University of Kent has argued that unless something is done, the British people will become a minority in their own country by 2063. Considering that native birthrates have drastically declined, it's likely that this date will arrive sooner rather than later. The Office for National Statistics reports that in 2023, 37.3 percent of all live births in Britain were to parents "where either one or both were born outside the UK". That number is actually much higher in London. 

The situation has sparked rioting, including outside of hotels housing immigrants. The rioting will likely continue to escalate in reaction to the broad demographic changes, in particular to the Muslim "grooming gangs" and widespread immigrant crime. Non-European immigration began to increase in small levels in 1948 with the passage of the British Nationality Act. Almost immediately, reports of migrant sex crimes began in Bradford, Kent, West Yorkshire, Lancashire, Hartlepool, Faversham, Nelson, Halifax, Oldham and many other locations. Operation Stovewood found that nearly two thirds of convicted grooming gang offenders in Rotherham -62%- were known to be of Pakistani background even though Pakistanis then made up only about four percent of the town's population. 

The increase of non-European immigration to more than a million a year during PM Boris Johnson's term has aggravated the issue. Sustained mass immigration took root as a Tory norm during David Cameron's term. Statistically, Britain has now overtaken Sweden as the rape capital of Europe with 71,227 cases reported in 2024 according to the ONS. 

Another very negative fallout from immigration has been the increased competition in the job market for younger generations. Their opportunities are dwindling and their quality of life is being threatened. In 2024 the unemployment rate for young people (16-24) was 14.2 percent, which is almost three times higher than Germany's. The Institute for Public Policy Research indicated in 2011 that Britain would be 750,000 houses short of housing demand by 2025. This year the Center for Policy Studies has revealed that that number is closer to 6.5 million. 

Britain is multicultural and no longer even close to 'distinctly' British. Like the US, they have allowed far too many to enter the country that not only fail to assimilate but actively destroy long-standing customs, traditions and norms. An arm of the British NHS recently published a defense of first-cousin marriage... There have been countless occurrences of arrests due to saying or publishing on social media the harms to England and the English imposed by foreigners. 

Shameful and failed leadership are to blame. From America, we feel your pain England.

The US is headed for tyranny, and fascism. Or is it?...

 "No Kings Day" recently set a record, or so it was claimed, of 2,600+ protests across the country. The protests were mostly peaceful demonstrations organized not only in the US but around the world. Their stated purpose was to express opposition to what the participants see as rising authoritarianism in the Trump administration. There is the perception, and I emphasize the word 'perception', that the constitutional democratic form of government of the United States is under threat of, I'm not exactly sure what the protesters are afraid of, but I presume, ceasing to exist. That we are entering into a fascist dictatorship ruled by Donald Trump. 

Peaceful protests and demonstrations are a civil right in the US, a right afforded to every US citizen. They are a hallmark of a free, civil society. Are we really on the brink of authoritarian rule? Fascism? Naziism? Dictatorship? In the United States every citizen is entitled to their own opinion, as well as the right to openly speak their opinion. However, while it may not be a requirement of law, every citizen also bears the moral responsibility of adhering to the principles of right and wrong. Every American has the right to call Donald Trump whatever moniker they choose. Nazi, fascist, Hitler, that's a civil right. Untold numbers of American soldiers gave their lives so that we may preserve that right. 

When the activist fervor carries into violence, then there are no rights. At that point, it becomes a crime and the rule of law comes into play. Attacking federal officers, ramming personal vehicles into Immigration and Customs vehicles, endangering the lives of federal officers conducting federal sanctioned operations is not only illegal, it's morally inept. Far too many activists are under the misconception that ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, are conducting raids on innocent Americans. The vast majority of these raids have been targeted against illegal aliens with criminal records. And these criminal records are not pedestrian offenses. Rape, murder, drug offenses, human trafficking, assault, property crimes, et cetera. Unfortunately, the victims of these crimes are inevitably American citizens. It's worth noting that far too many of these victims are deceased as a result of the crimes inflicted upon them. And the claims of ripping innocent, hard-working victims from their homes and families is patently baseless. Illegal entry, re-entry or remaining without authorization is a crime. It's in the statutes and has been for generations. The fact that Biden and Obama chose to ignore immigration laws does not revoke them. The fact that the Trump administration is enforcing them does not make them inhumane. 

If leftist activists are frightened that we are devolving into authoritarian rule, I suggest enlightening oneself with some knowledge of history. Was czarist Russia a constitutional democracy before Stalin and Lenin took control? Was Germany a constitutional democracy before Hitler assumed power? Does anyone of sound mind and some knowledge of world history believe that 535 elected members of Congress who hold the power of impeachment believe that a president could choose to, and succeed in eliminating the legislative branch? About the same odds as a meteorite hitting planet earth and destroying all forms of life. It's a possibility, but highly unlikely...

The Age of Obama

 Is over. Even Barack Obama knows that, though he's reluctant to acknowledge it. As Trump was finalizing  a deal to end the war between Israel and Hamas which basically, repudiated everything Obama had ever had a hand in regarding the Middle East. In a recent podcast interview, the ever arrogant, pompous ex-pres demoaned the politicization of the FBI and Justice department as though he didn't play an instrumental part in their corruption. It's especially contemptible considering his role in various and sundry scandals is now documented public knowledge. 

Obama now appears nonplussed, wondering how the nation came to embrace Trump, a man who in almost every ideological way set out to undo everything he had 'accomplished'. Once thought to be a transcendent figure in American politics, despite the incessant media accolades and unmerited awards, Obama's legacy has been eclipsed by his Republican successor. And for very good reasons. 

Obama utilized the federal bureaucracy to push the country to adopt leftist social views. Which the Biden admin blindly and willingly continued. Most presidents leave Washington after their time in office is over to avoid the impression that they are trying to manipulate their successors. Obama pretentiously did not. It is clear and evident to even this most casual observer that Obama was directing the marionette that was Joe Biden. It was Obama who unleashed the intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice on political foes. And it was Obama who put into motion the DEI foolishness that permeated much of the Western world. 

It's not a well-known fact, but indeed is a fact that Obama issued an executive order to establish a "Coordinated Government-Wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce" back in 2011. This ignominious order coincided with the timing of legacy, mainstream media racializing practically every topic written about. 

The left has long sought to transform American culture not in alignment with its own cultural and political goals. Clearly, Obama played a significant role in the incipient stages of the Great Awokening. It appears Obama's legacy is that of abject failure. A century-old progressive movement that collapsed under its own contradictions, unrealized ideals and failure to connect with reality. 

Fewer young people are identifying as trans...

 A very surprising shift is taking place in the gender and sexual identities of young Americans. Data from the Heterodox Social Science Report shows that since 2023 both trans and queer identity among young Americans has dropped sharply with Generation Z. 

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) which conducts a large annual survey of US undergraduates, polled over 60,000 students in 2025. Just 3.6% of respondents this year identified as something other than male or female. In 2024 that figure was 5.2% and 6.8% in 2022 and 2023. The number of trans-identified students has halved in just two years. 

This trend is especially marked in elite institutions. Andover Phillips Academy in Boston surveys over 75% of its students each year. In 2023, 9.2% identified as neither male nor female. In 2025, that number was 3%. A similar story comes from Brown University. 5% of students identified as non-binary in 2022 and 2023, by 2025 that share had dropped to 2.6%. 

More of the surveys inquired about sexual orientation than gender identity. Based on the data in the graph, the pattern appears to be rising non-conformity from 2010 until 2023, with a near 10 point drop in the ensuing two years. 

It's tempting to speculate about the reasons behind the rise and fall of trans and queer identities. Mental illness among American teens has fallen since 2021 as confirmed by the FIRE data.  Changes in mental health over time, especially depression, made s significant difference in the trend of trans and queer identities over this period. The drop in mental health issues encompassed all social groups, including trans and queer youth. The post-pandemic decline in mental illness did not immediately trigger a decline in sexual and gender non-conformity, that shift didn't occur until a year or two later. There is no clear evidence to indicate what is driving the retreat from alternative gender and sexual identity. However, there is clear evidence that it is happening. Ironically, "woke" attitudes such as shouting down those perceived as hostile to transgenderism hasn't changed much since 2020. 

It appears that trans and queer identification has declined among young Americans even as levels os wokeness and religion have not. For young people, gender and sexual identity are now independent fashions that rise and fall separately from other cultural and political currents. This is quite an unexpected post-progressive development that education and media establishments will be reluctant to acknowledge. 

Is legalizing marijuana really a good idea?...

 Over the last decade a handful of states have mulled the idea of legalizing the use of recreational marijuana. Some have forged ahead with the legislation to do so, some have not. As of 2025, 24 states have legalized the recreational use of marijuana. That's close to half of the 50 states. Fourteen states have legalized the restricted medical use of marijuana. Doctor's prescription only. The standards for obtaining a prescription are not known and not a subject of this article. I am making no contest as to the validity of medical use marijuana. My understanding is marijuana can be quite effective in alleviating the pain associated with certain cancers and the treatment of them. I have personal experience with the pain associated with cancer and chemotherapy and I am 100% behind anything that can alleviate this pain.

But this is not the point. Cancer patients who are suffering indescribable pain are not typically out driving and getting into accidents. Recreational users are. Data shows these 'users' are involved in a disproportionately high number of auto fatalities. We have known for a long time, a very long time the relationship between drinking and auto accidents and fatalities. There is no need to delve into those statistics. It is worth noting the relationships between driving while under the influence of THC and auto accidents and fatalities. 

Going back to the days of the repeal of prohibition and the invention of automobiles, there is a dark relationship between driving and the consumption of alcohol. The loss of life due to driving while intoxicated is inestimable, beyond frightening, and it continues today. But we have now included a new dimension to this lunacy. Driving while high. As I mentioned earlier, almost half of the states have approved recreational use. I might ask the question, what is the 'purpose' of drinking alcohol, if not recreational? I dare say, there's never been a medical professional ever who has prescribed alcohol for a medical condition. Obviously, alcohol is exclusively for recreational purposes. It serves no medicinal purpose. When these 24 states passed these laws, was due consideration given to the risks associated with driving while impaired? I think not.

A recent study conducted in Ohio, which is one of the 'legal recreational states' proffers the following statistics: 42% of drivers in Montgomery County Ohio who died in traffic accidents over a six year period from 2018 to 2024tested positive for THC. Any way you look at it, that is very competitive with traffic fatalities due to driving while under the influence of alcohol. I wouldn't expect results much different from other 'recreational use states'. 

Who exactly benefits from these liberal laws? The recreational users? Of course. It is without doubt a fledgling industry within itself, as was alcohol in the early days.  We are approaching the benchmark where about half of traffic fatalities are due to driving while high. Is the high from a joint worth dying for? Or taking the lives of innocents in an accident? How is this net effect any different from driving while under the influence of alcohol? The net result is people die, does it matter what the inebriated person was indulging in?... 

Having the right to indulge in the recreational use of THC products is not the issue. Just as the right to imbibe alcohol is legal. But no one has the right to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of any substance that impairs the ability to safely operate a vehicle. This puts not only their life but the lives of others at risk. We have well over a century of evidence that the results of this can be catastrophic. About 12,000 people each year are killed in auto accidents involving drunk driving. In 2021, there were about 11,000 drug involved traffic fatalities reported. This includes crashes where one or more drugs were detected, not THC alone and not necessarily causal. Obviously, there is a surfeit of recreational drugs, most of which are illegal and will always be. A few peer-reviewed studies comparing crash rates before and after legalization across states estimate increases in fatalities that could amount to 1,000 - 1,400 additional traffic deaths per year. Data for traffic fatalities where THC was known to be the cause of the crash is in an incipient stage. But the pattern is already emerging. Legalization may have solved the issue of reducing the amount of drug offenses for a 'seemingly harmless' drug that many will indulge in anyway, but at what cost? It sort of seems like throwing fuel on the fire...

Colorado: beautiful state, ugly policy.

 When Americans think of Colorado, we think of beautiful, scenic mountains , clear mountain air, and not just freedom but a 'sense' of freedom. It is without doubt one of our most beautiful states, of many. Many alluring advertisements attempting to convince foreigners to visit the US shows photos of Colorado landscapes. Visitors from the world over as well as the US make a stop in Colorado a must. 

If you are a visitor, what Colorado has to offer cannot be beat. If you are a resident or a counselor, there are issues. In 2019, Colorado enacted a law that restricts counselors (lawyers) from having conversations regarding gender and sexuality with clients under the age of 18. Any counselor who engages in any such conversations with clients under the age of 18 could face steep fines, up to $5,000 for each violation, possible suspension from practice and even revocation of license. 

A Colorado lawyer challenged this lawsuit. The Supreme Court heard her case today, and there are aspects of her case that should lead to a ruling in her favor. A ruling leading to free speech prevailing. Colorado bans the expression of viewpoints with which it disagrees. If a young girl comes to this lawyer, whom we'll call "Beth' and says she thinks she may be a boy, and wants to realign her identity with her sex,  Colorado law bans that conversation. The law does, however, allow conversations to impel that girl down a path of gender transition, which might include dangerous drugs and procedures. Colorado is forcibly obliging counselors and their clients to succumb to its ideological demands or refuse help. 

Colorado's misplaced paternalism harms the very children it aims to protect. Colorado law declares 'change' a forbidden goal if a client seeks conversation to help them recover an identity consistent with the biological sex. Studies show that roughly 90 percent of children who struggle with gender issues before puberty  will regain comfort with their sex over time. Colorado's law encourages these children to a path of gender transition. Colorado law deprives children of the many reported benefits that can come from counseling, including a better understanding, improved mental health, and increased hope that they can live consistently with their faith. Many clients believe that their religious identity is more fundamental than their self-perceptions of gender and sexuality. 

For whatever reason, Colorado's state government goads counselors and clients into a forced ideological path. Unfortunately, this path ignores free speech, client autonomy, and restricts available help which leads to sabotaging help in the counseling room. The most helpful ways to discuss gender and sexuality, which are widely debated natters of moral and spiritual significance should be left to the counselor and client, not the government. 

This matter is now before the U.S. Supreme Court to reaffirm that freedom. By all means and matters it should protect free speech from Colorado's attempt to thwart it. The rule of law is the rule of law. No state is allowed to opt out... This includes Colorado...

Celebrating Communism; raising the Chinese flag in Philadelphia

 Tomorrow, on September 30, Philadelphia's Office of Immigrant Affairs is planning to raise the red flag emblazoned with the star of the Chinese Communist Party to celebrate the anniversary of the establishment of the CCP.  There's more than just a mere touch of irony involved here. Less than a mile from City Hall, the site of the proposed CCP flag-raising, Betsy Ross stitched the first American flag in a small house on Arch Street, at the direct request of President George Washington. The Stars and Stripes was adopted by the incipient United States on June 14, 1777. It was proudly flown during the Revolutionary War that resulted in our independence. Very near to Betsy Ross's house is the site of John Dunlap's press that disseminated the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1788.  

Celebrating the authoritarianism represented by the CCP is antithetical to the essence of freedom and American values. Is this 'virtue-signaling, tolerance for diversity, or just a patent disgrace? Philadelphia has long been the center of gravity for American freedom. A public celebration of the Chinese Communist Party, which is fast becoming the single greatest national security threat to the United States in the 21st century, is warped.

The proposed event is being sponsored by the Pennsylvania United Chinese Coalition, part of a network of organizations attempting to boost the CCP's reputation and influence within the US under the guise of 'cultural exchange'. While it may have been intended to be a symbolic gesture, it is nonetheless crass and vacuous. Here is the real underpinning irony; many Chinese-Americans are in Philadelphia because they were seeking the freedom and opportunity denied to them by the CCP. The Chinese in Philadelphia are likely loathe to celebrate the regime that persecuted them. This 'ceremony' is likely more of an insult to them, not to mention a reminder that they're not far enough removed for the CCP. Philadelphia's Office of Immigrant Affairs needs to rethink this. We should be celebrating American Freedom, not Communist oppression. Just ask the Chinese immigrants...

Discord, Dissonance, Hate, Murder, What's Next? Dare we ask...

 It's difficult to say exactly when the 'divide' began to develop, but it has been over a fairly long period of time. Decades, for sure. As children we're not really aware of which direction the political winds are blowing, but there are some major political events that we will remember even at a very young age. In November, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed. Johnson was in office when the bill passed, but Kennedy first proposed it. I remember both very well. I was ten years old. I was born during the Eisenhower administration and recall seeing him on television. It was black & white back then of course and stations signed off at midnight to the National Anthem. The good old days...  I don't recall my parents ever declaring they were democrat or republican, but they were indeed patriots and supported the president. Eisenhower was a Republican and Kennedy was a Democrat. Both great presidents. No hint of a political divide back then. 

During the Reagan and Bush admins, any ideological political divide that existed was subdued and mostly irrelevant. Compared to the present political climate, this was a very calm period in politics. Along comes Bill Clinton. The Whitewater Scandal, Travelgate, Filegate, and ultimately Monicagate. Scandal after scandal, there were those unfortunate ones who lost their jobs and reputations, but such never included the Clintons. Except of course Monicagate which resulted in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. In January, 1998, Bill Clinton on national TV made his famous statement, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." As he said this he shook his right forefinger at the nation for emphasis. In August 1998, Clinton admitted to an "inappropriate" relationship with Lewinsky. The House impeached Clinton in December 1998 on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. In February 1999, the Senate trial acquitted on both counts. Oddly, the Republicans held the majority in the Senate but could not remove Clinton from office without a 2/3 majority. Obviously, the democrats would not support the move to impeach. 

Arguably, there were a number of points in history that could be tagged as the genesis of the political, ideological divide the country is experiencing today. In my opinion, the above described event is a prime contender. The president of the United States screws a 20-something year-old intern in the Oval Office, is impeached and his party refuses to vote for impeachment?... Despite his DNA being on her blue dress? How much more egregious could his conduct get before the Democrats would vote to impeach? From that point forward the impetus to 'protect the incumbent Democrat' by the party members, and increasingly as time passed by the liberal-leaning mainstream media began to snowball. There are dozens upon dozens of examples but it has become tiresome to recount them. So I won't. They are all a matter of public record. 

Fast forward to today. The divide is so real, and raw. So raw that a young radical, leftist murdered a conservative activist speaker on a university campus in Utah. Simply because he was tired of his perceived "hate". I say perceived because the majority does not align with his speech being 'hate'. Not everyone, including myself, agreed with everything Charlie Kirk said. The Civil Rights Act was not a mistake. In broad, general terms and point by point, it was no mistake. There have been numerous misrepresentations about what he said and meant, but the Civil Rights Act was not a mistake. It was a requirement. It was necessary. 

But let's put Charlie Kirk aside for a moment, God rest his soul. He was a good person. He loved his family, he loved God. Give him credit. But, here we are. In a nutshell, we have right and left. Should it be so simple. We have far-left and far-right. The 'fringe'. The 'extremists'. Is each actually a part of the divide? Is the far-right' actually 'right'? Ditto for the left? We see 'markers' that cause us to tag them as right or left, but are they really? Or are they in reality just 'extremists'? Prone to violence, even to the extreme of taking anothers' life? Taking another's life is a heinous act of insanity, even if transitory. Blame it on the right, blame it on the left, what difference does it make? It's a criminal act. Let's blame it on criminal tendency. Blaming it on the left or the right is a waste of time.  

Now, let's move past that. We know how far we have come and how wide the divide has become. How do we fix it? Can we fix it? How much worse, how many people must die before we can make it better. Let's go ahead and get optimistic, before we can stop it. I wish I could answer that. I wish anyone could. If we look at history, when we reached such a divisive point in the past, war broke out. Did the war solve it? No, but changes were made and we went on. We, eventually unitedThe problem is lives were lost, thousands of lives. God help us it doesn't take a war to make those necessary changes this time. 

The tax you didn't even know you were paying...

 We've all heard the old adage "There are only two things that are guaranteed in life; death and taxes". Hard to argue with that axiom. Taxes are endless; income, property, estate, sales, inheritance, capital gains, excise, luxury, tariffs, hotel/lodging, motor vehicle...  And more. But there is one tax not listed here that we all pay at some time, some of us more than others. Much more. It's an insidious tax for which there are no statues that codify it. But it's real, very real. That tax is time. 

Most discussions of inequality focus on wealth gaps and income. But there's an equally sinister version of inequality that doesn't pit the rich against the poor. It's the administrative state's pilfering a valuable resource from anyone trying to get ahead and improve their life. Time. 

Time inequality is less visible, harder to measure and more harmful than income inequality. Modern life and liberal market advocates have achieved a steady increase in individuals' leisure time. Work/life balance is a goal of any corporate environment these days. In the past those with fewer means labored from sunup to sundown to survive, they now enjoy more time for family, rest and improving their lives. Lassez-faire delivered this miracle; but government bureaucracies are surreptitiously taking it back. 

Navigating government systems is like a second job that doesn't pay the bills. Renewing your drivers license, that's a half day down the tubes. Applying for social security benefits? Lots of luck with that. Starting a side business? Expect to spend months navigating complex licensing requirements, completing paperwork, obtaining inane approvals, and making repeat visits. These are beyond mere annoyances, they're regressive, invisible taxes involving time, imposing the greatest burden on those with the least resources. A 2016 study by researchers at the consulting firm Management Lab revealed that bureaucratic waste - including delays and over regulation cost America 17 percent of its GDP. This number represents real hours lost, opportunities denied, and lives hindered. The well-to-do have ways around this. They can hire assistants, pay for expedited services, or simply take time off without financial strain. But for the poor, every government imposed delay comes with a tangible cost: lost wages, missed shifts, and less time with family. I didn't even mention frustration and stress.

A maze of occupational licensing laws govern over twenty percent of U.S. jobs. In many states to obtain a license for a job one must pay fees, pass tests and complete sometimes hundreds of hours of training. It's not just money being extracted, excessive amounts in many cases, but time. For example, in New Mexico to obtain a cosmetology license one must complete more than 1,600 hours of training. Requirements such as this are intended to protect incumbents who benefit from high hurdles to eliminate competition. 

To compound the problem, even after meeting the costly, time-consuming requirements, many find themselves blocked by arbitrary bureaucratic vetoes. Policies like 'certificates of need' allow government officials to decide, often without justification, that an individual's services aren't needed, regardless of that person's qualifications. Some people who are hindered by arbitrary hurdles seek help from the courts. Legal recourse can be a marathon as well, not to mention unaffordable by most. The Supreme Court case Sackett v EPA involved a family that wanted to build a modest home on their property in Idaho. The EPA claimed jurisdiction over their property and threatened absurd fines unless they obtained an expensive permit. The couple fought back, and won. But it took a full sixteen years to vindicate their rights. Is this government overreach or sheer stupidity? Both, I suppose, but a little heavy on the stupidity. 

What can be done about this? Actually, a lot. Lawmakers can repeal these ignorant, baseless licensure requirements. Government permission is not needed for jobs that pose no risk to the public. Streamlining government processes; if it takes more than 30 days, requires multiple in-person visits, or can't be completed on-line, then the process is broken. Implement response time caps, default approvals, and digital filing for everything. Regulatory audits shouldn't measure only monetary costs, they should also measure the time burden. Courts should treat bureaucratic time-wasting, particularly when it burdens or prevents people's right and ability to earn a living, as a matter of legal concern. Courts reflexively defer to regulators determination that a law is necessary, even when the law blocks a person from earning a living. If a law unnecessarily consumes people's time without a clear public benefit or need, the courts should strike it down. 

Every unnecessary delay, form and regulation is an insidious, hidden tax on our most precious, unrecoverable resource: time. And that tax is anything but equal. On an individual basis, time is a very limited resource. The time tax is real and it's time to treat it that way...

Getting the Job Done.

A couple of weeks ago a New York Appellate Court dismissed an unconstitutional and disgraceful $500million penalty on President Trump and his businesses. At the time, incidentally, New York Attorney General Letitia James was getting busted for mortgage fraud.  Rewind a little further and have a look at all the declassified documents released by Tulsi Gabbard, John Ratcliffe and Kash Patel that show the entire RussiaGate hoax was quarterbacked by then president Obama and Hillary Clinton. A scrutiny of the events reveals a collapse of the legal and deep-state forces against president Trump. One could arguably say such reveals explicit details of the ongoing collapse of the Democratic Party. 

Not only could the deep-state not defeat Mr. Trump and the forces of treachery and sedition break him, the prominent liars are themselves now facing criminal indictment. To ice the deception cake, Trump was re-elected. Quite a nightmare for Obama, Clinton, the deep-state, and the Democratic Party. It appears that all those who participated in the Russian hoax and various other phony trials, they're getting fired form their jobs and lawyering up. 

As if that's not enough, Trump is running a vastly successful administration in terms of economic policy, domestic policy, foreign policy, immigration policy et al. Oh, lest we forget, law and order. He closed the open border. Not only could they not put him in prison, or bust his businesses, or keep him off the ballot, or tie him to the Russia hoax, he is now succeeding in virtually every initiative he's put forward. In spite of numerous judicial hurdles (overreaching federal district judges) the judicial system appears to be working. As bad, inept and corrupt as some of these judges have been, with all of their political biases and weaponization of lawfare, Trump has prevailed. Hey, he may be a bit of pompous jerk at times, but he's getting the job done...