What Does the "Rule of Law" Look Like?

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is the premise that the United States of America is founded on the rule of law. Yet, there are two top stories in the news that shows that America does not operate on the rule of law.


            The first story has to do with retired Lt. General Michael Flynn. He was charged under the Obama administration of lying to the FBI, but the Trump Department of Justice dropped the charges against him because they had no foundation. The judge in the case determined that the case could not be dropped until a group of attorneys that have no bearing in the case gave their input. What right does the judge have to bring additional players into the game after it has been called off?


            The second story is connected to the first because former President Barack Obama decided that he should come out of the shadows and make a statement. He declared that the rule of law was not being followed because the Flynn case was dropped. Obama claimed that there were no precedents for the DOJ to drop the case, but conveniently “forgot” that his own Department of Justice had dropped cases for the same reason.


            If the United States runs on the rule of law, why is the judge allowed to change the rules? Why is there a question in Obama’s mind about the Flynn case and the rule of law? Could the problem be caused by the past administration’s abuse of law? Will we eventually see justice under the rule of law? If so, will the abusers of the law be brought to justice? Will we see indictments and convictions for those involved in the silent coup against Donald Trump?


            My answer to all those questions is, “I do not know.” I do know that the only way that the planners and plotters of the coup will be brought to justice for Donald Trump to be re-elected. If a Democrat is elected as President of the United States in November, we can kiss justice goodbye because it will be a return to the same stuff that we saw under the Obama administration. 

This is the reason that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have been playing games with the American people. This is the reason Obama came out of the shadows to make a statement about the rule of law. They are doing their best to keep Trump from having a successful presidency. If they and all their ilk stopping fighting against American and started working for Americans, we would see a much different country. The best thing that we can do for America is to vote straight Republican and retire the whole bunch of them! Of course, life would still not be a bowl of peaches and cream because we would still have RINOs like Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney to do the dirty work for the Democrats.

How Is COVID-19 Similar to and Different from the Asian Flu (H2N2)?

            I keep hearing about a terrible pandemic flu that originated in Asia and swept the world. This flu killed 1.1 to 2 million people globally and 116,000 Americans. Like COVID-19, it came during economic prosperity in America, hit hardest in the cities on the two American coasts, and eventually led to a global recession. The time was 1957-1958, and I was 12 or 13 years old. I do not remember even hearing about a pandemic at the time.


            Fred Lucas wrote about the COVID-19 and said that people compare it to the Spanish flu of 1918-1919 that killed 50 million people globally and 675,000 Americans. Fewer compare COVID-19 to the Asian flu of 1957-1958. He suggested that people look at the Asian flu in four different ways.

1. The Death Rates

The projected COVID-19 death toll may be in line with the 1957 virus only because of aggressive mitigation efforts and lockdowns. Some computer models have projected COVID-19 could have killed more than 2 million in the U.S. had the country proceeded business as usual….

The H2N2 Asian flu of 1957 is ranked as the seventh-biggest killer of Americans in history…. No. 1 on that list was the Civil War, followed by HIV/AIDS, the Spanish flu, and World War II.

Based on estimates that COVID-19 could kill between 100,000 and 240,000 in America, it will rank fifth if it reaches the high point. The yellow fever will rank sixth.

COVID-19 would be ranked ninth place if it reaches the lower estimate of 100,000 deaths in the U.S., behind World War I….

2. Spread of the Asian Flu

Birds carried the Asian flu. They carried H1 flu viruses onto another surface protein, H2, and made it more lethal because humans hadn’t encountered H2 before and had little immunity….

The lethal 1918 flu was H1, but because of humans’ exposure to it, it developed into a more ordinary strain by the late 1950s….

Dr. Maurice Hilleman, chief of respiratory diseases at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, warned that the pandemic was headed to the United States.

Although there were no lockdowns ordered by governments, the pandemic caused a global economic downturn and in late 1957, the U.S. stock market crashed, leading to a recession in 1958. 

3. Politics of H2N2

President Dwight Eisenhower initially resisted a federally supported vaccination program, and that may have led to a spike in deaths….

However, in August 1957, Eisenhower asked Congress for $500,000 in new spending and authority to shift $2 million from other areas to fight the pandemic. His goal was to provide 60 million vaccines. By early November, about 40 million doses were available and the spread of the flu began to slow substantially….

A political side drama also occurred when Eisenhower refused to get a vaccine before it was widely available to the public, because he didn’t want special treatment.

Public Health Service officials issued an advisory for older Americans with a history of heart problems to be vaccinated as a priority. The warning largely was aimed at Eisenhower, who yielded to pressure and got the vaccine Aug. 26.

4. Finding a Vaccine

That said, the medical world had a big advantage by the time doctors and scientists figured the pandemic was on the way. As opposed to COVID-19, medical scientists weren’t starting from scratch in developing a vaccine….

Although it’s not clear how he compares to Dr. Anthony Fauci or Dr. Deborah Birx, Hilleman was the hero of the story by several accounts….

Similar to today, officials had to bypass regulatory hurdles….

Although the casualty rate was high, it likely would have been far higher without the vaccine.

President Ronald Reagan presented Hilleman with the National Medal of Science in 1988 for his contributions to public health. The doctor died in 2005 after helping to develop more than 40 vaccines.

            How did I miss both a pandemic and a recession? Could it be that we were already living at poverty level and were sort of isolated on the farm? I wish Dad and Mom were still living, so that I could ask them about it. I asked my oldest living sibling if she remembered a pandemic in 1957, and she did not. She would have been 23 years old, married with several children, and living in a different isolated area where the virus apparently did not reach.


            I remember other things from that time. I remember Eisenhower being President, and I remember when John F. Kennedy was running for President. I remember when polio was rampaging across America. It peaked in 1952 and must have been scary for parents. I remember a whole summer when we were not allowed to swim in any of the ponds or canals around the farm. I had a childhood friend who was severely infected with polio. He wore a brace from his ankle to his waist for numerous years. I do not remember when he got the brace off, but I think that it was before high school. I saw him at the 50^th year class reunion, and he still walked with a limp but got around fine. 

I remember standing in line in the gymnasium of the elementary school waiting for my turn to be vaccinated for polio when I was about nine years old. I remember feeling grateful that a vaccination had been discovered, so it must have been frightening for children. I wonder how many people will be grateful if/when a vaccination is discovered for COVID-19.

Are You Surprised that All Nine Justices Agreed on an Immigration Case?

            I did not think that it was possible, but I discovered I was wrong. All nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court voted the same way in a unanimous decision. Unanimous! Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the most liberal justice on the Court, wrote the decision. The whole thing is almost impossible to believe, but it is true.


            The case is United States vs. Sineneng-Smith, and it came up through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The nine Justices on the Supreme Court slapped it down because it “drastically” deviated from judicial norms. The “case involved a statute which prohibits encouraging illegal immigration for financial gain.” 


            It seems that a grand jury in California indicted Evelyn Sineneng-Smith in 2010 on charges that she encouraged illegal immigrants to apply for “a labor certification program that once provided a path for aliens to adjust to lawful permanent resident status.” The problem is that they did not qualify for the program, but Sineneng-Smith did not care. The ruling from the Supreme Court noted the following:

To qualify for the labor-certification dispensation she promoted to her clients, an alien had to be in the United States on December 21, 2000, and apply for certification before April 30, 2001….

Sineneng-Smith knew her clients did not meet the application-filing deadline; hence, their applications could not put them on a path to lawful residence. Nevertheless, she charged each client $5,900 to file an application with the Department of Labor and another $900 to file with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

            The federal law in question states that it is a crime to “encourage[e] or induc[e] an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.” Sineneng-Smith made $3.3 million in her scam, and her defense claimed that she was merely engaging in free speech when she encouraged illegal immigrants to apply for something that they were not qualified to do.


            The Ninth Circuit struck down her conviction after seeking three “friends of the court” for their expert opinions about the overbreadth doctrine – no law can allow can have “an overbroad restriction on free speech.” The Ninth Circuit judges made this ruling, and this is the reason why the Supreme Court came down hard on the Ninth Circuit: 

…the appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion. We therefore vacate the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remand the case for an adjudication of the appeal attuned to the case shaped by the parties rather than the case designed by the appeals panel.

            It is shocking to me to hear that there was a unanimous decision on the Supreme Court on an immigration matter because I did not expect to ever see it. The justices did not rule on the constitutionality of the law itself, but the decision did leave the law in place. In case you did not understand the law, it is illegal to encourage, suggest, or persuade an illegal alien to enter or reside in the United States knowing that it is against the law for them to be here. It seems to me that this law would apply to whomever and whatever the circumstances whether it is for money or for family. It is illegal to invite an illegal alien into the United States!

Should Biological Females Be Forced to Compete against Biological Males in Girls' Sports Programs?

            My VIPs for this week are a trio of female high school track and field athletes who are tired of losing competitions to biological males who want to be female. Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell decided that they had lost enough competitions to transgender females and filed a federal lawsuit in February with the hope that the courts would stop the policy Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference that allows biological males to compete in girls’ sports. I applaud them for doing so. 


            When I graduated from high school in the mid-1960s, girls could not compete in sports outside their physical education classes. I do not know why this happened as it did, especially since my mother was the captain of the girls’ high school basketball team. What happened between the time that my mother was in high school and when I was in high school is a mystery to me. However, I know what happened between my time and the time that my daughters were in high school.


            On June 23, 1972, just a few weeks after my first daughter was born, Title IX of the educational amendments of 1972 was enacted into law. Title IX ended discrimination against girls based on sex. It says: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”


            This means that any school from elementary to college that receive federal dollars must treat both sexes fairly and equally. This means that girls’ programs receive “equal access and quality” as boys’ programs even if the dollar amount is difference. This sometimes means that boys do not get all the sports that they want. Some schools allow girls to try out for boys’ teams, and they make the team if they are good enough. I have heard of at least one girl who was the kicker for her high school football team. 


            Anchorage is a hockey town, and the local school district was forced to start hockey teams for girls to satisfy Title IX requirements. There were not enough girls to form teams for all the girls, so girls from several high schools played together on a team. With a total of only six teams, the program did not qualify for a state tournament. The program was discontinued in 2013 after ten years of trying to make it work due to lack of interest. The state hoped that the recently added girls’ flag football program would satisfy Title IX requirements. Any girls who wanted to play high school hockey could try out for the boys’ team.


            Title IX was put in place to protect girls and to give them a place to play and excel in sports. Any school organization that allows transgender girls – what I call want-a-be girls – to compete against biological girls is moving girls’ programs back for decades. Boys’ bodies are stronger, and their legs are longer. It is unfair to expect girls to compete against biological males who decide that they are females.

Are We Still Living Under the Rule of Law?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the rule of law. The United States is known for its government that runs on the rule of law and not the rule of man. Everyone in the nation is consider equal before the law. Some of us question if this is true because of the treatment given to certain powerful people in the nation, but we could still see them brought to justice.


            The rule of law was brought to the discussion last week after the Department of Justice (DOJ) dropped its case against retired Lt. General Michael Flynn. The federal judge still must sign off on the case, but everyone expects it to happen. General Flynn’s lead attorney, Sidney Powell, dropped a bombshell in an interview on Fox News today when she claimed that former President Barack Obama was involved in the plot to frame the General carried out by the DOJ and the FBI. Powell explained her claim as follows:

These agents specifically schemed and planned with each other how to not tip him off that he was even the person being investigated. In fact, according to Comey’s testimony that’s attached to the exhibits they filed in the motion to dismiss, they just simply said, ‘we’d like to send a couple agents by to talk to you.’ …

The whole thing was orchestrated and set up within the FB, Clapper, Brennan, and in the Oval Office meeting that day with President Obama….

            Barack Obama, of course, claims says otherwise. According to Yahoo News on Friday, this is what Obama is saying about the situation with General Flynn.

The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed – about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn.

And the fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic – not just institutional norms – but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.

            Self-described liberal, constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley disagreed with Obama’s claim that the “rule of law is at risk” with the Flynn case. Turley claims that Obama’s comments show that he was “personally invested … in the Flynn case.”

It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury….

Second, we now know Obama discussed charging Flynn under the Logan Act which has never been used successfully to convict anyone and is flagrantly unconstitutional.

Third, this reaffirms reports that Obama was personally invested in this effort.

            Turley continued his comments by saying that Obama was wrong about no precedent for the DOJ’s sudden decision. He explained that there is a specific rule that allows this motion, and the DOJ has used it in the past. He said that it was used in the Stevens case. “That was requested by President Obama’s own Attorney General Eric Holder for the same reason: misconduct by prosecutors. It was done before the same judge, Judge Sullivan. How is that for precedent?”


            Turley said that it was entirely possible for “people of good faith” to disagree about the Flynn motion. However, “it is simply untrue if President Obama is claiming that there is no precedent or legal authority for the motion.”

What Is the Influence of a Mother on Society?

            Tomorrow is Mother’s Day. It marks 41 years since my first Mother’s Day without my mother, who passed away on May 5, 1979, just one week before Mother’s Day. It was a sad time for her children, and we mourn anew each year. My mother was a little woman. She was about five feet two inches tall and weighed less than one hundred pounds. She had blue eyes, and her hair was snow white when she died at age 70.


            The writer of Proverbs 31:28 could have been describing my mother when he wrote, “Her children rise up, and call her blessed.” There are numerous ways that Mom blessed the lives of her children because she had many good character traits. The characteristic that I remember most is that I never heard my mother say a bad word about any person. She did not gossip or spread rumors about anyone.


                Many people recognize that mothers impact the lives of their children in many ways. A righteous mother has a lasting influence for good, and a wicked mother can make a horrible impact on her children. The Reverend Billy Graham was fortunate to have a righteous mother who taught her children well. He wrote the following about the influence of a mother:

Only God Himself fully appreciates the influence of a Christian mother in the molding of character in her children. Someone has said, “Like mother, like children.” Most the noble characters and fine leaders of history have had good, God-fearing mothers. We are told that George Washington’s mother was pious, and that Sir Walter Scott’s mother was a lover of poetry and music.        On the other hand, we are told that Nero’s mother was a murderess and that the dissolute Lord Byron’s mother was a proud and violent woman. The influence of a mother upon the lives of here children cannot be measured. They know and absorb her example and attitudes when it comes to questions of honesty, temperance, kindness, and industry.

            A woman does not have to be perfect to be a good mother. In fact, a woman does not even have to be a mother to work a lasting motherly influence on the rising generation. Genesis 3:20 tells us that “Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” At that point, Adam and Eve were still living in the Garden of Eden, and Eve had not borne any children. Every girl and woman show motherly instincts as they reach out and bless the lives of other people. Many children do not grow up in the home of a righteous mother, but they are blessed by another woman who loves them as a mother.


            Kay C. James is the president of The Heritage Foundation, and she posted an essay with the title “A Mother’s Impact Reaches Far Beyond Her Children.” James reminded her readers that “the family is the fundamental building block of our society. It’s where new generations are created and meant to be nurtured and taught morals, values, and personal responsibility – the things that a society needs from its citizens to flourish.” Since mothers are usually with the children more than the fathers, it is often the mothers who instill these characteristics in their children. James recognized that many mothers do not even “realize that their role has an impact that goes far beyond their own families – a role so pivotal to society that it’s truly one of the most significant things they will do in their lives… The research bears it out.” So, what does the research say?

The strength of our families has a significant impact on each and every American – from the amount of taxes we pay, to the growth of our economy, to the level of crime in our neighborhoods.

Years of research has shown that the children of nurturing, intact families are more likely to have higher academic performance and greater emotional maturity as well as more financial stability as adults. They are less likely to commit crimes and abuse drugs and alcohol.

From a societal standpoint, strong families led by nurturing mothers and fathers mean less poverty and dependence on the welfare system, fewer crimes, a healthier and better educated populace, and a stronger economy, among other benefits.

            Many women desire to be mothers, but they fear that children would limit their career choices. Other women limit their careers to have children. Some women seem to have the best of both worlds, and James seems to be one of them. She explained that she grew up with a single mother who worked hard all day every day to provide for her children. James missed having her mother at home and thought of her own childhood experience as she pursued her career. She felt that she needed to be home while her children were young, and she was. James says that “No one can tell me that being a stay-at-home mom prevents you from having a successful career.” She admits that it took planning and sacrifice, “but the results were well worth it.” Here is James’ suggestion for Mother’s Day:

This Sunday, while we’re wishing our mothers and grandmothers a happy Mother’s Day, we also need to acknowledge their unique contribution to society – one that has helped make this nation the envy of the world.

Strong families remain America’s best anti-poverty, anti-crime, pro-health, pro-prosperity institution, and we have moms to thank for much of that.

            Mothers of all kinds play a unique role in society. Their influence is felt in society for generation after generation. A dear friend once told me how I would know if I was a good mother. She told me to watch how my children parent my grandchildren, and only then would I know if I had been a good mother. Parents are usually too busy to look far into the future, but grandparents and great-grandparents can look at their posterity and see the fruits of their labors.

How Do We Deal With Children During Covid-19?

            Families, communities, and nations are strong when children are strong. The world has been battling COVID-19 for several months, and children have been shut up in their homes for nearly two months. My grandchildren are bored without being able to interact with their friends. The little ones are happy that older siblings are home all day every single day. Families are spending much more time together. This is usually a good thing but not always.


            The neighborhood children seem to be handling the pandemic well. I see them outside where they play together but maintain six feet distance from each other. It is easy to do while riding bicycles. Whenever I walk out to get the mail, they move out of the way to not endanger either of us.


            I am wondering how children in general are doing. When the pandemic first came to the United States, most of us were in a state of panic. We knew the coronavirus was contagious, but we did not have full understanding of it. I was quite tense about how it would affect my family.

I learned that I could collect the mail and let it sit for several days, and I could do the same with any groceries that did not need refrigeration or freezing. I wash my hands thoroughly after touching anything that has been handled by other people, but I no longer worry about possibly missing one of the little coronavirus bugs.

If you have children in your home, you may be dealing with a different situation, or you may have become accustomed to hunkering down at home. However, I thought that I would send along these suggestions from a pediatrician. 

The first thing you need to do is remain calm … do not communicate fear….

Second, teach your children about the specifics of this virus … do our best to avoid getting COVID-19 while the experts work on testing, treatment, and vaccines….

Third, reassure children that if they do get the virus, they’ll probably just feel like they have a cold….

Fourth, find out what your children are thinking about the issue….

Fifth, give them something to do. One of the best ways to help children feel less vulnerable is to tell them what they can do to avoid getting the virus….

Sixth, live as normally as possible. With all of this said, try to maintain a normal family routine…. Whenever you can find something fun for your children to do that doesn’t involve being around a lot of people, do it. Keep children busy and moving….

            The goal of every parent should be to help their children to look back on this pandemic as a time of family togetherness and not as a time of fear. This is a time to make good memories because positive memories will strengthen the children, which will in turn strengthen the family, community, and nation.