Arlen Specter is Not the Enemy

Matt Chancey — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 05:33:16 -0500

First, watch a little of this YouTube Video:

Now, watch this short one:

Finally, watch this commercial:

With the departure of Republican Senator Arlen Specter from the GOP to the Democratic Party, President Barack Obama now has a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate.

Specter’s action represents the culmination of George W. Bush’s legacy. In January 2001, the Republican Party controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. The treasury was running a surplus.

Eight years later, the country is basically bankrupt, and the Democratic Party controls the Presidency, the House, and now a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Americans are mad—especially conservative Americans. They don’t like who controls the White House. They don’t like who controls Congress. And they especially don’t like the opposition that is supposed to stand up to the Democrats in Washington.

According to a recent CBS/New York Times poll, job approval ratings for the Democratically-controlled Congress stand at about 28 percent. That’s pretty bad.

Normally, an opposition party could make hay with these numbers and recruit lots of new supporters. But there is little sign the Republican Party is doing that. In fact, a recent Pew Research poll revealed that GOP leaders have only a 28 percent approval rating—by REPUBLICAN VOTERS.

If Republican voters think so little of their own leaders, what must Democrats or Independents think?

And in truth, who can blame them?

Who spearheaded the first round of bailouts in the fall of 2008? President George Bush, a REPUBLICAN.

Which Congressmen switched their votes at the last minute to pass the first massive bailout bill? REPUBLICANS.

And who came to the aid of Senator Arlen Specter in 2004, when he was challenged by a conservative, pro-life opponent in the GOP primary? President Bush and Senator Rick Santorum, REPUBLICANS.

And the GOP wonders why it can’t raise any money! It wonders why the base doesn’t trust it!

Tears came to my eyes years ago as Senator Rick Santorum stood in the well of the United States Senate and passionately appealed to his colleagues to pass a ban on partial-birth abortion. There was deafening silence in the well as Santorum spoke. And, almost on cue, as Santorum finished his speech, a baby somewhere in the visitor’s gallery cried. It was one of the most powerful moments I have ever witnessed on Capitol Hill.

Fast-forward a few years to 2004. Liberal, pro-abortion Arlen Specter was fighting for his life in a hotly contested primary. Conservative, pro-life Pat Toomey was gaining fast and threatening an upset. So, Specter called in the Big Guns. President Bush made a surprise visit to Pennsylvania to campaign for Specter; and standing on stage with him was pro-life Senator Rick Santorum.

The conservative community was outraged. But Santorum did not flinch. He even cut a commercial for Specter to woo conservatives to vote for a man more liberal than many Democrats in Congress.

Two years later, when Santorum ran for re-election, he was trounced by the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent Senator in 26 years. Justice is sweet.

But after losing their majority in Congress in 2006, Republican leaders did not learn their lesson. In order to combat the most charismatic, energetic, and popular Democratic candidate for President since John F. Kennedy, the GOP supported Senator John McCain. Sen. McCain, with the possible exception of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, was the most liberal candidate running for the GOP nomination.

For most Republican voters, a vote for John McCain was not a vote for John McCain, but a vote for Sarah Palin or against Barack Hussein Obama. Anyone can tell you that them’s not good odds for victory when you’re running for president.

And, as if to leave no doubt in the minds of his conservative supporters on where he stands on fiscal policy, Senator McCain suspended his campaign during the last crucial weeks to support the largest single spending bill in the history of the WORLD.

But, after all this, most Republican leaders still haven’t learned. Just two weeks ago, Senator John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, tried to deep-six Pat Toomey’s 2010 campaign (again) by strongly supporting Arlen Specter. This is worth a lengthy quote:

April 14th, 2009

Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, issued his firm support of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) today in a letter affirming the senator’s conservative credentials on issues ranging from keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance to support for a ban on so-called partial birth abortions. Specter is likely to face a primary challenge from Pat Toomey, former president of the Club for Growth.

“As I survey the political landscape of the upcoming 2010 elections, it’s clear we need more candidates that fit their states,” Cornyn wrote. “While I doubt Arlen could win an election in my home state of Texas, I am certain that I could not get elected in Pennsylvania. I believe that Senator Specter is our best bet to keep this Senate seat in the GOP column. A vote for Arlen Specter is a vote for denying Harry Reid and the Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate.” (http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/04/cornyn_on_spec…)

“A vote for Arlen Specter is a vote for denying Harry Reid and the Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate?” Whoops!

No Republican should blame Arlen Specter for giving the most liberal administration in the history of our Republic a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate. On the contrary, Arlen Specter should be congratulated for finally figuring out that he’s been a Democrat all these years.

In my mind, the blame lies squarely with President Bush, former Senator Rick Santorum, and the host of Republican leaders who kept Specter’s career alive in 2004 when it could have ended.

The Republican Party has met the enemy– and he is us.

Redefining a Nation

Matt Chancey — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:28:20 -0500

My last article, “Secession… an American Tradition,” elicited some good questions from readers. The whole issue of secession seems to beg the larger question of what constitutes a nation anyway.

To answer this requires a brief overview of modern nationalism.

Here are a couple of definitions to start:

Nation:

A large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax. (www.Dictionary.com)

Nation:

A body of people inhabiting the same country, or united under the same sovereign or government; as the English nation; the French nation. It often happens that many nations are subject to one government; in which case, the word nation usually denotes a body of people speaking the same language, or a body that has formerly been under a distinct government, but has been conquered, or incorporated with a larger nation. Thus the empire of Russia comprehends many nations, as did formerly the Roman and Persian empires… (Webster’s Dictionary, 1828 Edition)

Notice how Noah Webster defined “nation” somewhat differently than we do today. Today, we put emphasis on government and geography. But Webster put emphasis on people with a common language or heritage living in community (or covenant) together. A nation, to Webster, could easily exist within another nation. More is involved in a nation than just the political geography.

On the other hand, the best definition of modern nationalism that I’ve heard comes from author/historian Dr. George Grant. Grant defines nationalism as equating the nation with the civil government of that nation. In other words, when we think of the United States of America, we think of a flag, a bald eagle, or a white-domed capital in Washington, D.C. We don’t generally think of the English language (especially nowadays) or small towns, mom, and apple pie.

What’s difficult for us to realize is that our view of nationalism is relatively new to the West. The modern western-style nation-state is a product of the 19th century. Before the 1800s, a map of Europe looked like someone took a black-and-white map of Europe, a box of crayons, and gave them to some kindergarteners to fill in. There were literally hundreds of dukedoms, fiefdoms, cantons, bailiwicks, kingdoms, states, etc.

Europe in 1400

Lines of political geography changed all the time. Depending on who died, was deposed, or related by marriage to King XYZ, etc., you could live your life in several different “nations” and never move!

But the French Revolution changed all of this. For the first time since the glory days of the Roman Empire, Europe saw what we would recognize today as a modern nation. France liquidated its aristocracy (literally) and embraced full-blown, top-down statism (in the name of liberty, of course). The French put a million soldiers in the field, an unheard of number at the time. This forced smaller European states to amalgamate as a matter of survival.

Of course, the French flirtation with Democracy quickly led to a tyrannical dictatorship, and the Napoleonic wars destroyed what was left of Old Europe.

Europe in 1900

There was, however, one place where the old West still thrived: America. In America, the very notion of one all-powerful national government sent chills down the spines of Jefferson and Madison. Only Alexander Hamilton and a few lackeys had dreams rivaling Napoleon, but Aaron Burr had the good sense to shoot him before his views became a real threat to the Republic (tongue firmly planted in cheek).

But this new Napoleonic nationalism began to creep into America following the War of 1812, and by the 1830s, there were actually some northern U.S. Senators making speeches about “the Union” being older than the States making up the Union—a truly preposterous notion, akin to saying a son is older than his father.

This new revelation was a convenient belief, because these same Congressmen were using the Federal treasury as a personal expense account for their home states. Believing that the States were subservient to “the nation” justified this 19th-century version of wealth redistribution (for the “greater good,” don’t you know!).

To make a long story short, Abraham Lincoln’s election was the first time this new brand of nationalism took over the Executive Branch. Before Lincoln’s presidency, the United States was referred to in the plural, viz. “The United States are”—not “the United States is.” The modern American “nation” was born. This was a nation that defined itself in terms of geography and government, not in terms of people and relationships.

Lincoln’s “of the people, by the people, and for the people” rhetoric was just that—fancy words. Lincoln did not believe the people were the government; he believed the government was “the people.” That is why when Barack Obama says today that “the American People want X, Y, Z,” he’s really saying, “I want X, Y, Z.” In this view, the voice of the Nation (i.e. the Government) is the voice of the people. Obama doesn’t want what we want. To him, his wants are our wants. Obama is a nationalist in true Lincoln style.

Lincoln is credited with “saving the Union.” But an honest review of American history will show that he did not save America. True, he preserved America’s political geography as of 1859. He preserved the tax revenue sources he inherited as president. But he didn’t save the American nation as Noah Webster defined nation. Jefferson’s America was all but destroyed. Madison’s America was all but destroyed. And Hamilton snickered in his grave.

One’s definition of “nation” will greatly affect his definition of patriotism. In fact, it will determine it. If you believe, as Lincoln did, that America is the same thing as the present federal government of America, then opposing that government in any way is “unpatriotic.” This explains why Lincoln imprisoned an estimated 20,000 Americans (mostly Northern political opponents)—without warrant, without trial, often without even a charge. Even Jefferson Davis, President of the “treasonous” Confederate States, was never brought to trial. Yet, he spent two years in federal prison.

I have to laugh when I hear talking heads like Keith Olbermann admiringly quote Lincoln when denouncing Texas Governor Rick Perry’s comments on secession. Given Lincoln’s own record of secret prisons and sham military trials, one would think Olbermann would at least cut some slack for another Texas governor he constantly attacked for similar offenses committed against suspected terrorists.

With our nation involved in seemingly endless wars, suffering an economic crisis not seen in three generations, doubled over in debt, beset by a bloated and predatory bureaucracy, and governed by incompetent leaders, many Americans are starting to re-question just what being an American truly is. What is true patriotism? What do we value most as Americans? And an increasing number are looking to Noah Webster’s definitions for the answer—not Napoleon’s.

America is not about political geography—and never was. America is about ideals. Really good ideals; but ideals that are increasingly being viewed as unpatriotic and even treasonous today.

Secession…an American Tradition

Matt Chancey — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 05:26:06 -0500

Texas Governor Rick Perry raised a few eyebrows recently when he used the “S” word in public. Secession, he said, was always an option on the political table as far as Texas was concerned.

Secession has been referred to by some political scientists as a “political divorce” of sorts. However, I don’t like to use divorce as a metaphor when discussing secession. When a couple is divorced, a family is destroyed, but when one political jurisdiction decides to break away from another, civil government is not destroyed. In fact, sometimes secession is done to preserve civil government.

Secession has been unpopular in the United States in recent times, because the last time it was attempted, 620,000 Americans were killed. The American “Civil War” was far from civil, and it accomplished little more than growing the federal government to a size that made King George III look like Ron Paul in comparison. Some historians have quipped that Lincoln didn’t free the slaves, but enslaved all Americans under one master in Washington, D.C.

Few governments have been more schizophrenic when it comes to secession. Since suppressing its own secession attempt, the United States has supported dozens and dozens of secession movements around the world.

For instance, when Eastern European countries began breaking away from the former Soviet Union, America cheered, sent foreign aid, and immediately recognized their sovereignty. I doubt that if Alabama or Texas decided to “break away” from the American Union, they would be met with the same support from “Chairman Obama’s” federal government. In fact, some officials and pundits responded to Governor Perry’s remarks by claiming they were treasonous.

It seems self-determination is great for everyone…except Americans.

I seriously doubt we will see any real secession attempts in America in the near future, and I personally question whether there is any state legislature that would offer a real improvement over the current regime in Washington, D.C.

However, the issue of secession should never be out of the question. To do so would be to deny the very origins of the American Republic. It was an act of secession that led to the formation of the United States. No rebel army fought for control of the colonial legislatures. Rather, it was the colonial legislatures that voted for secession.

This is the big difference between a “civil war” and a “war of independence.” A civil war is when two or more parties fight for control of the same government. A war for independence is when one government breaks away from another government. So, the American “Civil War” is technically inaccurate. “War Between the States” is also technically inaccurate, because, although states fought each other, it was under the guise of two national governments: the United States, and the Confederate States of America.

Most propagandists in the North didn’t call it a “Civil War,” but preferring the more condemnatory “War of Rebellion.” It was better PR for President Lincoln to be the aggressor quelling an internal rebellion than one suppressing a war of independence. That is why Lincoln never acknowledged the Confederate States as a nation and used every bit of his military-industrial complex to ensure no other nation recognized it, either.

As an interesting aside, the only organization to officially recognize the Confederacy was the worldwide Anglican Communion, which recognized the consecration of Rev. Richard Wilmer as Bishop of Alabama in 1862.

Although I believe American secession is unlikely in the near future, one thing could change my perspective. That is the rapid collapse of the American economy—particularly the dollar.

The American Empire has amassed an enormous debt, far exceeding $50 TRILLION in unfunded obligations. This debt is so incredibly high, it is mathematically impossible to pay off without either massive taxation or massive inflation—or both.

I have found that people are willing to think outside the box politically when extreme need or hardship gives them no other option. However, such political revolutions can be just as disastrous if they merely replace one “messianic state” with another.

American secession is a history of smaller governments desiring to preserve the endangered rights and liberties of their citizens. Secession to replace one form of government dependence with another is not secession but slavery.

But to those who categorically denounce American secession as treason or anarchy, I simply remind them that what made American great was not because it occupied a particular piece of dirt, but that it supported a unique worldview—a worldview that embraced the notion of God-given rights that are non-negotiable and whose security the civil government must guarantee. When civil government fails to defend these rights, it can—and should—be abolished and replaced by one that can (see the Declaration of Independence). This process might change the geography a bit. It certainly did in 1776.

What troubles me is that there are many so-called conservatives out there who would prefer to retain the present American geography but lose the American worldview. And they believe this is “patriotism,” when nothing could be more un-American.

Political geography may change. In fact, nothing has been more natural in world history. But as long as the American worldview survives, America survives.

WANTED: Examples From World History…

Matt Chancey — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 06:16:01 -0500

Just a random thought today…

I may be betraying my ignorance of history, but I’m willing to take that risk.

I am trying to find a situation in all of recorded history analogous to the present U.S. economic crisis, where a government has spent $ TRILLIONS of fiat money within a few months to “solve a problem” and hyper-inflation (or massive taxation) DID NOT occur as a result.

If anyone out there in cyberspace knows of an example, please post a comment.

Everyone is a “Trillionare” in Zimbabwe… one of the world’s poorest countries

If no examples can be found, does it make sense for anyone to keep real wealth in the form of US dollars? As bad as the stock market is performing, at least a stock is ownership in a company—which may be profitable or own assets that have value. But paper money can, overnight, become an “I.O.U. nothing.”

The only issue in my mind is who is going to “get out of cash” in time. Some economists are saying that because other currencies are doing much worse than the dollar and banks are not lending, we have a temporary period of deflation. But if they are correct, how long will this last, and who will wait too long before they get out? I think whoever answers this question correctly will be a very wealthy person.

P.S. To read how politicans manage to pull the wool over taxpayers’ eyes and manage to get re-elected, consult my new book “The Politician’s Pocket Guide to Raising Taxes.”

Obamanomics

Matt Chancey — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:45:20 -0500

Introducing: The Politician’s Pocket Guide to Raising Taxes

Matt Chancey — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:59:55 -0500

I’ve finally gotten around to publishing my Pocket Guide for Politicians. Some of my readers will recall that this project has been sitting on my shelf gathering dust for years. Well, the first edition is finally complete. You can purchase copies by clicking HERE or on the book cover to the right.

This pocket-size book is a work of political humor, but it is also designed to educate voters on the prevailing tactics used by politicians to raise our taxes. It is a very quick read which will hopefully make it more effective.

If you like the book and desire to order bulk copies at a discount, please contact me through this website. The book also comes in a digital form which is much cheaper than paperback.

Enjoy!

In Defense of Brandy

Matt Chancey — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 06:19:47 -0500

President Obama showcased his ignorance of world political history at the G-20 summit in London recently when he made a crack at his political predecessors’ penchant for back-room brandy sessions:

Well, if there’s just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, that’s an easier negotiation. But that’s not the world we live in, and it shouldn’t be the world that we live in.

I realize that every generation likes to think of itself as unique and facing problems their ancestors did not. It’s the easiest way to excuse failure. No one will blame a world leader for poorly handling a challenge that the world has never seen.

They were probably waiting on the brandy to be served…

But there’s just one problem: “There is nothing new under the sun,” as the Good Book told us long ago (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

Instead of reading Rules for Radicals, President Obama should have paid more attention to his Western Civ professor. If he had, he would have realized that he has it comparatively easy. Before the 19th century, Europe was a tangle of literally hundreds of sovereignties. Large and small kingdoms, duchies, city-states, cantons, fiefs, and even an occasional nation made up the continent of Europe– and that was just Europe!

To make matters worse, most of the leaders were related.

But even the recent past wasn’t as simple as Obama evidently believes. Winston Churchill was Prime Minister as bombs daily dropped on his country by one of the most violent dictators the world has every seen– with the possible exception of Joseph Stalin of Russia, whom Churchill had to juggle as an ally!

To make matters worse, Churchill had to play welcoming committee to hundreds of thousands of American GIs camping in his country—which is the size of North Carolina. Talk about an invasion!

The German government flooded the world market with counterfeit British pounds to destroy the English economy, while Churchill’s government borrowed $ billions more from the U.S. (which it’s still paying back today!).

The British people not only endured constant threat from German bombs, devalued currency, and food rationing; but thousands of parents had to send their children away to the countryside or even overseas to stay with strangers while the war raged on their doorsteps.

So, one would think President Obama would forgive Churchill for ordering brandy with his cigar when President Roosevelt came to call.

But I can understand why President Obama feels his circumstances are more difficult. After all, Obama believes that more government is the answer to practically all our current problems. More government means someone has to govern. There was practically nothing that the federal government didn’t already regulate or control when Obama took office. So, adding still more responsibility would naturally make someone feel sorry for himself.

Perhaps Obama should order that brandy. It might help a little.

How to Stop School Shootings

Matt Chancey — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:09:31 -0500

After the latest school shooting in Germany, I think we all need to get together and decide to get serious about ending school violence – by banning schools!

Something goes on in modern schools that lead more and more young people to grab guns and blow away their teachers and classmates.

School shootings are even more numerous than shootings at Post Offices or other Government buildings. So, we need to take drastic measures and ban all schools.

Who’s with me?

Cutting Taxes = Increasing Revenue

Matt Chancey — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 05:22:55 -0600

Around 150 BC, Emperor Ching Ti came to power in China and immediately faced a major problem: his treasury was empty.

Taxes were very high, but no real revenue was coming in. That’s because the system of taxes at that time was an early form of income tax that centered on the government taking a large percentage of a farmer’s crops.

So Ching Ti did something bold and innovative: he cut taxes.

Overnight, taxes went from over 50% down to about 3%. Farmers, who had fled to the hills to escape draconian tax rates, now came home and began farming again. To make a long story short, Ching Ti’s greatest problem while governing was trying to keep all the grain in his barns from spoiling.

It seems that ancient Chinese history is good for more than just cutesy script on a fortune cookie.

Today, Democrats in Congress are defending Barack Obama’s plan to increase taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year. These are the folks Democrats consider “rich.” They represent white-collar America—small-town doctors, lawyers, small business owners. In short, they are some of the most productive people in our country.

These are the people who create most of the jobs in America. They are also some of the biggest spenders in our consumer-based economy. Raising taxes on these people will create the same problem that Ching Ti’s predecessor faced— people stopped hiring, producing, and spending, and revenue plummeted.

After an initial spike in revenue (which may not even happen, since we’re in the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression), tax collections for President Obama’s government will not meet expectations. And since our government perpetually spends more than it takes in, our deficit will continue to grow unless massive spending cuts are enacted.

And that brings up a related point.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her liberal colleagues blame the Bush tax cuts for the present deficit disaster. But they’re wrong—100% wrong.

Tax cuts did not create our current deficits—over-spending did. Federal Revenue collection during the Bush years went through an initial drop (down to mid-1990s levels) but gradually angled up during his second term to eventually exceed collections prior to implementing the tax cuts Democrats blame for the deficit problem. However, federal spending kept exceeding revenue collection during all eight years of the Bush administration.

Chart Credit: The Heritage Foundation

The bottom line is that we don’t have a revenue problem in Washington—we have a spending problem.

But President Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s answer is to increase revenue through tax increases—not spending cuts. The result will be disaster. Over the long run, less revenue will come in to the treasury, but people will not get any richer.

Cutting taxes means people get to keep more of their own money. Tax cuts on the “rich” mean the people who produce the most wealth in the country can continue to be rewarded for creating wealth. This incentivizes them to keep creating jobs and investing in our country.

Reaganomics has not failed. Reaganomics has never been fully implemented—even under Reagan! Which leads to my final point: Republicans don’t get off the hook.

One major reason we’re in the mess we’re in is because of President Bush’s duel-personality political convictions. On the one hand, Bush wanted to be the fiscal conservative, cutting taxes. On the other hand, he wanted to be the “Compassionate Conservative,” doling out government funds like they were going out of style.

To say Bush spent money like a drunken sailor is a slam on the good name of drunken sailors everywhere. Even if you remove spending for the Iraq War, Bush was one of the biggest spending presidents in modern history.

Republicans in Congress today are blasting President Obama’s budget and stimulus package for its excessive spending on liberal wealth redistribution—and rightly so. But their credibility is severely damaged when one considers that for several years, many of these same Republicans gave President Bush whatever he wanted—including several $ trillion in new debt to finance his own version of “compassionate conservative” wealth redistribution.

If Republicans are to gain back any trust from the American people, they must honestly and candidly admit (as Gov. Bobby Jindal did recently before a national television audience) that Republicans governed badly when they held the reins in Washington.

I am glad to see a renewed vigor among many conservatives in Washington to tread the “ancient paths” once again and fight tax and spending increases. The current path President Obama and Nancy Pelosi has us on will likely make Americans pine away for the “good ol’ days” of the Carter Administration.

My recommendation is that Republicans nominate a Ching Ti for President in 2012.

The More Things Change

Matt Chancey — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:26:53 -0600

Here is the situation: A man in Oklahoma City gets pulled over by the police. Reason? He has a sign on the back of his truck that reads “Abort Obama, not the Unborn.” The police tell the man that this sign could be construed to be threatening the president’s life!

Wait a minute… I thought all abortion does is remove a blob of tissue from a woman’s uterus. Seems like the Oklahoma City Police know better… But I digress.

The police confiscate the sign and then call the Secret Service, who show up at the man’s home and search it to make sure he wasn’t a part of some “hate group.” After politely interviewing the man for 30 minutes, the Secret Service leaves.

And the crickets start chirping from the Left.

Where is the outrage from the liberal blogosphere? Where are all the cartoons portraying President Obama as Adolph Hitler incarnate? Any time during the previous administration if a police officer looked twice at a turban-wearing Middle Eastern-looking guy at an airport, he was accused of unconstitutional profiling and this was billeted to the American public as another reason why our country is becoming a Police State.

I guess to the Left, totalitarianism is only bad when you don’t control it. I hear no cry from the Obama Administration to repeal the so-called Patriot Act with its draconian Big Brother initiatives. Sure, we’re told that Guantanamo will be shut down, but big difference that makes when a normal guy from Oklahoma City can get pulled over by the police, then interrogated by Obama’s Secret Service and have his house searched because he’s pro-life and believes the president should be impeached.

I realize “Change” can’t happen overnight, but I wonder if President Obama will willingly give up the power his predecessors gave him through executive orders and fear-based policies?

So far, all I can say is, “The more things Change, the more they stay the same…”

Recent posts by Matt Chancey