The Reporter newspaper, Camdenton Missouri

The Reporter covers Miller, Morgan and Camden County in Central Missouri's Lake of the Ozarks and is published once per week on Wednesdays.

(Updated September 3, 2026)

Guest Editorial - U.S. Senator Josh Hawley - Why I Am Investigating Flock

(Published September 2, 2026)

Every month, AI-powered cameras take 20 billion snapshots of cars in America. In almost every case, these photos capture drivers who did nothing wrong.

These are regular folks on their way to work, picking up kids at school, or driving to church. Now, they are understandably asking what happens to the data captured by a network of more than 120,000 of these Flock cameras nationwide.

Even though this is new technology, it raises an issue older than our country itself.

In 1761, a Boston lawyer named James Otis went to court to fight against something called writs of assistance, which gave customs officers virtually unlimited authority to search anywhere for smuggled goods. After the colonial court did not stop the writs, John Adams said American independence was born “then and there.”

Otis never argued against law enforcement or the need for searches. He objected to open-ended authority without any limiting rules.

Today, Congress has not written any rules governing the data captured by national AI camera networks built by Flock Safety and similar companies. It may be governed by older statutes, and should have Fourth Amendment limits, but those are unsettled questions.
For now, for practical purposes, the only privacy protections for hundreds of millions of Americans are those found in one company’s internal policies.

I don’t know if Flock has broken the law, but I do know that technology is moving faster than Congress is keeping up. So I have opened an investigation in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, which I chair, into how this data is collected, retained, searched, and sold.

I heard about this issue in my home state of Missouri. The St. Charles County Police Department canceled its Flock contract this month, after an audit found a civilian employee running searches for personal reasons.

Sadly, my state is not alone. In Milwaukee, prosecutors charged an officer with searching his girlfriend’s plate 124 times and her former boyfriend’s plate 55 times, typing the word “investigation” in the software’s justification field each time.

Worse still, the system’s audit didn’t catch him; a private citizen did, after looking up his plate on a public website.

Adding insult to injury, the systems make mistakes. A Florida woman spent 13 days in jail on eight felony counts, three for vehicular homicide, after investigators searched Flock’s network for a vehicle description and arrested the owner. The prosecutors later dropped the charges because they had the wrong person.

Los Angeles dropped its Flock contract after an audit found officers had stopped 161 drivers wrongly flagged as driving stolen cars. Another California police department found that 71 percent of its alerts were wrong.

Then we consider what happens to records generated by these cameras. Flock boasts an $8.3 billion valuation, which brings commercial pressures.

Americans deserve to know whether and how their driving data is licensed, sold, and used. There are also concerns about whether data is sent or stored abroad.

For example, reporters have described Flock using gig workers in the Philippines to classify data captured by cameras. Powerful AI models also automate parts of the process, supercharging these concerns.
All that said, I want police to have the tools they need. Cameras can help recover stolen cars, find missing children, and catch fleeing criminals.

But people are concerned when private companies build unprecedented databases of personal information and want reasonable safeguards for that data.

And the Supreme Court has found that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy against a “comprehensive” record of where they’ve been. Americans do not surrender all their privacy rights every time they leave the house.

So I have posed common-sense questions to Flock about how long it keeps data, who controls it, who can search it, what protections are in place, and who, if anyone, is buying what the cameras see.
I hope the company will commit to resolving these questions. But even if it does, Congress should not just take its word at face value; we should write protections into law.

These safeguards must apply to every company and endure longer than the tenure of current CEOs. More fundamentally, the rules protecting Americans should be set by law and by the people, not by venture capital funds, AI executives, or big tech companies. - Josh Hawley

Guest Editorial - USPS has a $2.5 billion problem

(Published August 26, 2026)

Here is a different take, on an important topic appearing here frequently. It is written by Kathy Dorhman, publisher/editor of The Sweet Springs Herald and The Concordian, both in Missouri.

The U.S. Postal Service has once again announced a staggering financial loss.

For the third quarter of fiscal 2026, USPS reported a net loss of $2.5 billion. Yes, billion with a “b.”

Believe it or not, that is considered an improvement. The Postal Service lost approximately $3.1 billion during the same quarter last year.

USPS leadership says it is facing a severe liquidity crisis and could run out of cash in early 2027 without significant changes.

Its proposed solutions include increasing borrowing authority, cutting expenses and, of course, charging customers more.

Postmaster General David Steiner has discussed raising the price of a First-Class Mail stamp to somewhere between 90 and 95 cents.

But before USPS reaches deeper into the pockets of Americans who still depend on the mail, perhaps it should answer a much more basic question:

Are taxpayers and postal customers getting what they are already paying for? For many Missourians, the answer appears to be no.

Mail has been delayed. Mail has gone undelivered. Residents have reported going days without receiving mail, only to receive several days’ worth at once. These are not merely inconveniences.

The mail contains utility bills, checks, prescriptions, legal notices, newspapers, tax documents and other time-sensitive materials. For many elderly and rural residents, dependable mail service remains essential.

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley put the issue directly before Steiner during a June Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing.

Hawley pointed to thousands of pieces of mail discovered dumped in North St. Louis. The abandoned mail reportedly included prescription drugs, tax documents, bills and other important correspondence.
Then Hawley raised another issue that deserves attention - executive bonuses.

According to information cited by Hawley, Steiner received a $170,000 bonus during his first year as post-master general. Hawley has also said USPS leaders have received more than $2 million in bonuses and other additional compensation during the past decade.

Hawley subsequently called on Steiner to give up his bonus or resign and launched an investigation into Postal Service failures and executive compensation.

He has also proposed legislation that would prohibit Postal Service leadership from receiving bonuses unless mail delivery meets established performance standards. That idea makes sense.

Bonuses are supposed to reward exceptional performance. They should not simply be another line on an executive’s compensation package regardless of results.

When an organization is losing billions of dollars while customers complain that its basic service is unreliable, bonuses should be among the first expenses questioned.

Would eliminating executive bonuses erase a $2.5 billion quarterly loss? Of course not. Even millions of dollars in bonuses are small compared with a multibillion-dollar deficit. But that misses the point.

When an organization tells the American public that it is running out of money and needs higher prices, greater borrowing authority or reduced services, leadership should demonstrate that it has eliminated unnecessary spending at the top before demanding more from the people it serves.

The same scrutiny should apply throughout the Postal Service.

This is not an argument for indiscriminately eliminating postal jobs. There are undoubtedly thousands of hardworking letter carriers, clerks and other postal employees who show up every day and do their jobs well, often under difficult circumstances. But accountability matters.

If mail is repeatedly mishandled, delayed or not delivered, USPS management should determine why. If the problem is inadequate staffing, fix the staffing problem. If it is poor scheduling, fix the scheduling. If it is bad management, replace bad management.

And if employees repeatedly fail to perform their duties, management should address that problem rather than allowing customers to continually pay the price. The answer cannot always be another postage increase.

The price of a Forever Stamp has already risen repeatedly, yet customers continue hearing about declining service and enormous financial losses.

USPS reported $19.9 billion in operating revenue for the third quarter, up 6.1% from the same period last year. Despite bringing in more operating revenue, the agency still lost $2.5 billion.
That should tell Congress and the public that the problem is bigger than the price of a stamp.

The Postal Service has an important mission, particularly in small towns and rural America. Private carriers cannot simply replace the universal service USPS provides to millions of addresses across the country.

That is precisely why fixing it matters.

But saving the Postal Service should not mean writing another blank check, increasing postage every time the numbers do not add up or cutting rural service while executives continue collecting large bonuses.

It should begin with accountability, from the postmaster general down through the organization.

Before asking a grandmother to pay more to mail a birthday card, a small business to pay more to send its bills, a family to pay more to mail Christmas cards, a church to pay more to send its newsletter, or a local organization to pay more to reach its members, USPS needs to show the American people where its money is going.

Deliver the mail. Control spending. Hold management accountable.

Then come back and talk to Americans about what it really costs to keep the Postal Service running.

Until then, a 95-cent stamp sounds less like a solution and more like asking customers to pay more for a problem they did not create. - Frank Mercer

Guest Editorial - Insult the boss; get the axe

(Published June 10, 2026)

The mainstream media was clutching their pearls recently when CBS icon(?) Scott Pelley got fired from 60 Minutes.

That may have been a surprise to most people, but probably not to Pelley. One suspects, given the way he conducted himself, that he fully intended to get canned and would likely have been disappointed had he not.

Pelley was at the network a very long time, starting in 1989. During his career, he covered presidential campaigns, the White House, and wars (covered not “in combat” as he misstated). Most prominently, he was anchor of the evening news broadcast for six years and had been a fixture on 60 Minutes.

Pelley has that classic anchorman look, plus a voice and delivery which resonate trustworthiness. Yet, one thing he has never been accused of is a complete lack of bias. CBS always claimed they demanded reporting untainted by bias or politics from the news division. The people there probably thought they were delivering just that.

It’s hard to know you have a liberal slant when you’re surrounded by like- minded people. The news media is overwhelmingly liberal, with only three percent identifying as Republican.

An objective observer could see CBS News had deep sympathy with the left. Some have even called them a propaganda arm of the Democratic party.

That may have been an exaggeration, but there was never any doubt Democrats and their agenda would get favorable treatment, while the GOP could expect to be savaged on the network.

That all began to change when the network was acquired by Skydance Media which hired Bari Weiss, founder of The Free Press, to bring coverage back toward the center.

Weiss has faced a great deal of pushback in that effort and has been labeled in some circles as a right-winger and Trump stooge. Anyone paying attention to what Weiss says or what she has written can clearly see she is, as she proclaims herself to be, left-center. She says her goal is to serve the mostly ignored majority of Americans who are neither part of “an America-loathing far left” nor a “history-erasing far right.”

In today’s legacy media landscape, that concept is absolutely unacceptable. Anyone not fully on board with the far-left is an enemy who must be stopped.

Weiss is much reviled in some quarters at CBS News and it appears Pelley shared that sentiment.

When Nick Bilton was named the new executive producer at 60 Minutes, Pelley spoke very plainly about where he stood. At an introductory meeting, he accused Weiss of “murdering” the program. “She does not love this place. She was brought in to kill it, and she’s been doing exactly that.”

“She has no qualifications for her job; you (Mr. Bilton) have slender qualifications for this job,” he raged. Say something similar to your boss in front of the whole staff, and see how it goes.
Yeah, he had to expect to get fired after that outburst and more. But, he wasn’t, not right away.

Mr. Bilton met with Pelly again the following day, and only afterward did the axe fall.

“Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show...,” read part of Mr. Bilton’s written response. “I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort,” Mr. Bilton also wrote.

While it’s possible Pelley believed his long career and numerous awards would shield him, it’s more likely he didn’t care, and judged a new opportunity would await in a job that didn’t require any margin of objectivity.

Objectivity is no longer a mainstream media goal; or, when they say it is, the meaning of the word has usually been distorted. With the arrival of the first Trump presidency, there was an open move to ditch presenting both sides. That’s fine from a partisan outlet, but ridiculous when framed as unbiased.

This new narrative contented that there is really only one correct side, so presenting the other is actually doing a disservice. The a step is rolling with that day’s Democratic talking points.

The entire Pelley dustup puts a spotlight on just how much the media landscape has shifted over the years. When Walter Cronkite was anchor at CBS News, most Americans perceived him as unbiased, and felt much the same about the anchors on the other two networks.

People watched the evening broadcast for a quick run down of national and world news, and tuned in shows like 60 Minutes for more fleshed-out reporting.

There were also competitive morning and evening editions of big city newspapers bringing real depth to stories.

A host of weekly news magazines had the same mission.

Then, came 24-hour cable news networks, followed by internet outlets. Most news departments have shifted from just trying to cover events, to being part of the sales package by targeting a specific demographic. In today’s media landscape, a news consumer often picks their coverage so they never have to be offended by any opposing viewpoints.

The big outlets have played to their following for so long they’ve become unaware that pleasing a demographic is their new goal. Now the legacy media generally masquerades behind the hollowed legacy of their old objectivity.

It’s quite possible Pelley really believes he is unbiased, in spite of what he said at the Wake Forrest University commencement last year when he told grads they fight against the “insidious fear” generated by America’s leaders (meaning Trump and company, of course.)

“‘Diversity’ is now described as ‘illegal.’ ‘Equity’ is to be shunned,” he said. “‘Inclusion’ is a dirty word. This is an old playbook, my friends. There is nothing new in this.”

He also may be consciously unaware of giving preferential treatment. Like when he asked President Joe Biden about his mental focus and got the answer, “I’d say it’s– I think it’s– I– I haven’t– look, I have trouble even mentioning, even saying to myself, my own head, the number of years. I no more think of myself as being as old as I am than fly.” That ramble inspired no further questions on the matter from Pelley, who skipped to other topics.

You needn’t worry Pelley will soon be out in the bread line. His CBS salary was said to be about $7 million per year.

Plus, he’s now a hero of the left, and he’s certain to quickly land a new gig on an openly partisan platform where he can speak his “truth.” - Frank Mercer

Guest Editorial - Enough with the lawfare

(Published June 3, 2026)

There are plenty of pressing concerns facing the country. Take your pick: foreign or domestic; we’ve got a veritable smorgasbord from which to chose.

Yet, there is one which rarely shows up on the radar of the average American. That is the threat to our institutions by the ever increasing use of the justice system to attack political opponents. It’s called “lawfare.”

While such action has existed in various ways over the life of our republic, it is now gradually oozing its way into common usage. Both political parties seem to consider it a tool, and not a threat to our way of life.

That may sound overly dramatic, but it is not. The continued use of law as a political weapon edges us ever closer to banana republic territory. As Peru’s General Oscar Benavides is famously quoted, “For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”

We saw open political use of the law labeled as a quest for justice in the “get Trump” push in the years between his terms.

It was obvious this was about damaging a much despised presidential candidate, and not a search for justice.

Sometimes, those taking the lead said the quiet part out loud...that the only goal was convicting Mr. Trump of something, anything, to stop his presidential ambitions. Democratic prosectors pulled out all the stops to be that successful gunslinger.

This even went as far as the New York Legislature enacting a one-year exemption to statutes of limitations on alleged sexual assault, resulting in a civil suit over a hazy incident in the 1990s. (Even the year was never specific.) It was an “ends justifying the means” type of approach to law.

Letitia James ran for New York attorney general promising to find a way to prosecute Mr. Trump. She said her reason to seek the office was “about that man in the White House.”

After being elected she charged the former president with real estate loan crimes, twisting statutes in ways never before prosecuted. The “crime” was supposedly that the properties were overvalued in the applications, though the amount was agreed to by the lenders, and the loans were repaid.

There were a spate of novel legal theory cases which all coincidentally arose as Mr. Trump campaigned for the Republican nomination.

Mr. Trump was in fact convicted in heavily blue jurisdictions, and Democrats made a big play over the GOP promoting a felon for president.

Associates of the president also found themselves in legal trouble dating back to the Russian collusion hoax. Most all the cases seemed about creating scandal, with the added benefit of financial ruin brought on by fighting the charges.

None of this was how the law is supposed to work. Americans like to think prosecutors see a crime and seek to uphold justice; not see someone they don’t like and twist statutes to get an indictment.
Most everyone assumed Mr. Trump would respond with in-kind lawfare if returned to office. President Joe Biden sure thought so, and gave out unprecedented types of pardons to everyone he thought might be in Mr. Trump’s crosshairs.

President Trump has held nothing back, including an indictment against A.G. James over an alleged mortgage fraud in a real estate deal. Experts said those charges are as specious as the ones she filed against Mr. Trump.

If this were the only instance, you could say that it was to serve as a warning to Democrats: “You sucker punch us; we’ll hit back.”

But there is much more, and lawfare continues. The DOJ indicted former FBI Director James Comey on charges about his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

When that got tossed, Mr. Comey was charged with making a threat against the president for tweeting a photo of seashells reading “86 47.” However deserving of jail Mr. Comey may be for other acts, this seems like a waste of the DOJ’s time and money.

Cases of using the DOJ as a hammer have piled up. There was the attempt to get indictments against six Democratic members of Congress over a video to military service members reminding them they only had to obey lawful orders, which Mr. Trump called “seditious behavior.”

Plus, there are investigations of Fed Chair Jerome Powell; Lisa Cook of the Federal Reserve board; Adam Schiff, who led the first Trump impeachment; former special counsel Jack Smith; and on and on.
If we could know that this was all a scorched-earth payback plan which would end the lawfare forever, it might be justifiable.

That would require Democrats to admit they were out of line before and promise “never again,” and Republicans following suit. No way that happens. It’s the opposite of how politics in today’s world works.

Any breach of standards simply becomes the new norm and expands from there. Sleazy becomes sleazier, which at some point becomes old hat.
Prominent Democrats are already talking about impeachment if they take control of the House this fall.

A proposed $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to reimburse lawfare subjects isn’t the answer either. Taxpayers shouldn’t be put on the hook so the political parties can go after each other hammer and tongs.

The trend presents a real danger to our form of government. When every elected official becomes a target for financially-draining lawsuits, it will discourage vast numbers of highly qualified people from seeking office.

We must prevent the national thought process switching from “we need to vote this clown out of office” to “why hasn’t someone put him in jail.” That brings a very dark result.

Also, don’t imagine, when norms are established for the political elite, they won’t flow downhill. Right now, lawfare may be limited mostly to people with prominent national renown. If that becomes the standard, it would soon be used against average citizens. It’s not that far of a leap from a president going after another high ranking official to a local prosecutor finding dubious way to charge a home-town critic.

The best way to avoid becoming a banana republic is to not act like one. So, let’s not continue down the path. - Frank Mercer

Guest Editorial - A day for remembering

(Published May 27, 2026)

Though Memorial Day was last Monday,we need to remember that it is our country’s most solemn holiday. Over time, it has become, like so many of our other federal holidays, just the last day of a three-days off. For many it is nothing more than a day to take some time off from work. It was once so much more than that.

In some circles, Memorial Day is still observed as intended. People gather, usually at a cemetery, to reflect on those who gave all so that America could stay free.

The day should stir feelings of patriotism and reverence when you go to a cemetery and see the flags on display.

Some communities have a program where young people put flags on the graves of all the veterans.

This seems like a very worthwhile practice when so few children now have a family member in the armed forces. Thankfully, an even smaller number of today’s children have had to experience the loss of a parent in combat.

Memorial Day is about a debt that can never be repaid, and sacrifices which must not be forgotten.

America’s warriors, so many of them young people with their whole lives ahead of them, go to battle with the goal of protecting the country and way of life we all love.

Most come home, but far too many have lost their lives fighting for the ideals we hold sacred and defending the liberties we so often take for granted.

Today’s armed forces are entirely volunteer. Right now, our service members may be serving in the homeland, or in some other peaceful location. They might also be stationed in a location where hostilities are brewing with the potential to turn into armed conflict.

They all know, wherever they are stationed, that, in the event of war, they could find themselves headed anywhere across Earth. That’s because the United States isn’t just a country, but a world power with obligations to our allies and our interests around the globe.

That is why it is important for all of us to take a few minutes every Memorial Day to recognize those who lost their lives in the service of their country, and to spare a thought for those who could go into harm’s way.

That still leaves a lot of time for the barbecue, the family gathering, ball games, or any other activities Americans enjoy when they have an extra day off. It’s not wrong to spend time on joyous pursuits on a day which is set aside for solemn remembrance.

After all, part of what our warriors fought to defend is our right to the pursuit of happiness. It seems unlikely many would begrudge their countrymen a peaceful day at home or a boisterous time at the lake. Just so long as we pause to remember the high price paid to make it all possible.

I’m giving over the rest of this column to my late business partner, Jack Krier. He was a man of strong opinions about the need to remember America’s history, and to honor those who fell in battle. Here are his words on the holiday and something you can remember next year and every year.

As grateful Americans, we should always be mindful of the great sacrifices made by our fallen veterans, which made it possible for us to live in the greatest country the world has ever seen.

Memorial Day is the one day of the year to commemorate the men and women who died while serving in the American military. Originally known as Decoration Day, it originated in the years following the Civil War and became an official federal holiday in 1971.

Following the end of the Civil War, many communities set aside a day to mark the end of the war or as a memorial to those who had died. These observances coalesced around Decoration Day, honoring the Union dead, and the several Confederate Memorial Days.

According to Professor David Blight of the Yale University History Department, the first memorial day was observed by formerly enslaved black people at the Washington Race Course in Charleston, S. C.

The race course had been used as a temporary Confederate prison camp in 1865, as well as a mass grave for Union soldiers who died there. Immediately after the cessation of hostilities, formerly enslaved people exhumed the bodies from the mass grave and reinterred them properly with individual graves. The conclusion of the project created the first Decoration Day.

In 1868, Gen. John Logan, commander-in-chief of the Grand Army of the Republic, issued a proclamation that Decoration Day be observed nationwide. However, many of the southern states refused to celebrate Decoration Day, due to lingering hostility towards the Union Army and also because there were relatively few veterans of the Union Army buried in the South.

The alternate name, Memorial Day, was first used in 1882. However, it did not become common until after World War II and was not declared the official name by federal law until 1967.

On June 28, 1968, the United States Congress, in its infinite wisdom, passed the Uniform Holidays Bill, which moved the traditional date of May 30, to the last Monday in May, in order to create a convenient three-day holiday. This law took effect at the federal level in 1971.

After some initial confusion and unwillingness to comply, all 50 states adopted the measure within a few years.

Many people now observe this holiday by visiting cemeteries and memorials. Nearly all communities in our area have programs honoring the war dead. Some are well-attended; some are not.

We urge all of you to take an hour out of your holiday to pay tribute to those who have fallen so you can continue to live in peace in the greatest country in the world. Isn’t it the least you could do to show your gratitude?

We all must remember that the freedom we enjoy wasn’t free. Millions of Americans paid the supreme sacrifice so we could continue to live free. Yet, continually, our country’s citizens show less pride in their country, and take this great gift of freedom for granted.

It isn’t much, and it costs nothing. We urge each of you to attend a Memorial Day program. You are given an entire holiday, the sole purpose of which is to pay tribute to those who made the holiday possible. Certainly, you should be able to take an hour out of that holiday to pay tribute to those who made it possible.

An added bonus of attending a program would be that it would make you realize how fortunate you are to be an American. It will increase your pride in being an American and that, more than anything, is what the citizens of this country need.

That barbecue, that visiting can wait. Get to the cemetery, and honor those who made it all possible. - Frank Mercer

Guest Editorial - Topics galore

(Published April 1, 2026)

Let’s take a look at a few less-covered topics of the recent past.

First off, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act seems likely to die in the Senate. It should have wide support in Congress, because Americans widely support the idea of requiring identification to vote in elections.

A YouGov poll recently shows 80% favor requiring a valid photo I.D. to vote. That poll is not an outlier, as others had similar results.

We can assume this level of support is two-fold. Americans value the integrity of elections, plus they don’t see having proper identification as a burden.

Opponents blast this as voter suppression, and some go so far as to call the notion racist, or “Jim Crow 2.0”.

Often, that type of fear mongering manages to hit a little harder; but, this time out, it lands with a thud.

Why? Because nearly every American already has some type of qualifying government I.D. It’s ludicrous to argue that it’s a hardship to require proper identification when it is routinely required to enter a federal facility.

Just try getting anything done at the Social Security office without a photo I.D. They’ll direct you to the door.

Blocking SAVE seems like protecting the ability to do monkey business. It�s time for a little bipartisan action to move this process forward.

Also on the topic of voting, the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear arguments recently on Mississippi’s rule that accepts mail-in ballots up to five business days after the polls close, as long as they are postmarked on or before Election Day. (Five business days translates into a full week in real time.)

States should continue to be in charge of their election processes, so it won’t be surprising if that is where the court eventually ends up.

However, this is another situation which seems in dire need of fixing. Large numbers of people believe strongly that perception matters when it come to voting integrity.

Not that long ago, Election Day meant one specific day. There were exceptions for absentee ballots, but they weren’t common. Almost everyone voted on the same day.

The concern used to be that “every eligible American should exercise their right to vote.”

Somewhere along the line, that got skewed by the notion that people weren’t voting because it was too difficult. And, that has led to wide-spread early voting, over 40 days prior in several states.
Plus, we’ve seen a wider acceptance of mail-in ballots, and a general relaxation of how late they could be received and still be counted.

In the cases of blow-out wins, this means little. For close elections, it’s a spawning ground for distrust and doubt. Especially when votes counted days later change the outcome. Instead of knowing who won on election night, there are those “postmarked, but not here yet” ballots just sitting out there.

It seems reasonable to require that, for votes to be counted, they be in the hands of election officials election day.

Or, better yet, let’s all go back to voting on the same day.

We hear about incivility prompted by political affiliation frequently, but there are some situations which are just baffling.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders is the Republican governor of Arkansas. She reported that her group was asked to leave a restaurant because her continued presence was deemed intolerable.

I’ll start off with this. You may not always agree with politics, but certain positions deserve respect.

The governor of Kansas is a Democrat in a state which overwhelmingly Republican and heavily conservative.

Yet, it is a certainty that she is able to dine in any public establishment without being kicked out due to her political affiliation.

Gov. Sanders was allowed to eat in the Little Rock establishment in question, but her party was asked to move along. As they left, a person offered a single-finger hand gesture.

The restaurant owners issued a statement which read, in part, “Allowing her to stay risked being perceived as a lack of support for the community that makes up the majority of our team, as well as their families and friends.”

Further, “However, we stand by our choice to support our employees and guests.”

In the last several years, we’ve been inundated by the concept it is immoral to tolerate even the very presence of someone whose political views we disagree with. At holidays, there are always a gaggle of stories about banning a (usually pro Trump) family member.

Perhaps, it would be a better idea for establishments with such limited thresholds of tolerance to post them out front. Then we could all decide to give them our business or not.

I know multiple Second Amendment proponents who welcome the little “no gun” emblems on doors. Then, they don’t have to risk offending the owners or giving them “gun lover” money.

I’m still in doubt about reports that Iran’s newly elected ayatollah is homosexual. If true, it is perhaps the biggest irony in recent history, since being oriented so is punishable by death under their law.

Maybe, the rumors are true, but it does scream of propaganda. What better way to keep a new leader from getting a foothold than to label him abhorrent and a criminal.
That didn’t actually work with President Trump, but the U.S. doesn’t have Sharia law.

I’m convinced that the leadership of the U.S. Postal Service has set a goal of total failure. Little else explains many of their actions.

Reports are coming in that, in many rural towns, outgoing mail will be picked up once per day from the post office in the very early morning hours.

Thus would end any possibility of nextday service in many locations.

We’re long past the point where the country needs to recognize that the USPS is a vital institution deserving of funding from the government and throw out the ridiculous notion they should be entirely self-sufficient. The requirement that every home in the country be serviced every day, makes that nearly impossible.

The suggestion of raising first class rates to 94 cents, tied with slower service, looks like a path to extinction. - Frank Mercer

Guest Editorial - Keeping eyes open

(Published March 25, 2026)

Because terror attacks are a possible response to the military strikes in Iran, we’ve all been cautioned to be a little extra alert for violence here at home.
At the same time, we’re being cautioned not to fall prey to Islamophobia.

Fair enough, there are somewhere around 4 million Muslims in the U.S., and nearly all lead peaceful lives. Not all try to assimilate with American culture... but that’s a different debate.

Maybe we can agree that profiling purely by religion is casting too wide a net, and people should be judged by their actions, not their faith.

However, if a person shouting “Allahu Akbar” throws a bomb, drives a vehicle through the wall of a synagogue, or shoots people, it isn’t Islamophobic to conclude there’s a religious motive.
The major media can’t seem to bring themselves yield to that logic. At least three incidents with clear motivations occurred recently, and the media was slow to get out of the blocks.

The first couldn’t have had clearer motive. One teen (a high school senior) shouted “Allahu Akbar”, and threw an IED at protesters in New York City. This was right outside the mayor’s mansion.
A second teen (aged 19) was also arrested for allegedly supplying the first bomb. These were not smoke bombs, but bottles packed with explosives and nails and screws.

It was reported that both teens told cops they are ISIS supporters. Both are American-born of immigrant parents from Afghanistan and Turkey.

A far-right figure named Jake Lang put together a protest called “Stop the Islamic Takeover of New York.” It drew about 20 people. A far greater number of counter protesters appeared for a counter protest called “Drive the Nazis Out of New York.” So far, that’s well within the bounds of how protest is supposed to work in the U.S. Then, it gets real ugly.

Video shows the bomb thrower chucking his IED at the right-wing group, and over the head of a counter-protester who was talking on a loudspeaker. Ironically, the speaker was saying, “We want everyone here to stay in New York...”

The media rushed reports; and, for the initial stories, the villain was “Islamophobic” protesters, not kids with IEDs. Those initial stories served only to muddy the waters, with headlines like this from The New York Times, “Smoking Jars of Metal and Fuses Thrown at Protest Near Mayor’s House.” You can bet if it had been one of the “Stop the Takeover” bunch which hurled the explosive, The Times would have called it a bomb and said who the target was.

That’s still better than one local news outlet, City and State New York, which went with “Islamophobic demonstration outside Gracie Mansion leads to 6 arrests.” Talk about a lack of clarity.

CNN tried multiple times to frame events as an attack on New York City’s first Muslim mayor, Zohran Mamdani.

Slowly, it began to be undeniable that this was a terror attack. The two bombs used contained TATP, an explosive commonly used by terrorists because it is made from readily available ingredients. (They also call it “Mother of Satan” because it has a tendency to go off accidentally and kill the bomb makers.)

The attack failed, not from lack of effort, but from shoddy bomb design.

Elsewhere; 41-year-old naturalized citizen Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, originally from Lebanon, drove his car through the wall of a Detroit area synagogue. He engaged in a firefight with the armed security Temple Israel had hired for fear of such an incident. The attacker shot himself.

The synagogue’s preschool was in session at the time, and none of the more than 140 people inside was injured in the attack. One security officer was struck by the pickup, and 30 first responders were hospitalized for smoke inhalation after the building filled with smoke when the truck caught fire.

Law enforcement said that the attacker was stuck in the truck cab after crashing through a wall. Afterward, it was discovered he had a large quantity of commercial-grade fireworks and several jugs of gasoline in his pickup.

Investigation showed that the attacker bought over $2,000 worth of fireworks the day before the incident. (Which, according to store workers, was not remarkable because people routinely buy $5,000 to $10,000 worth for private celebrations.)

The media was quick to stress that the suspect had lost several family members, including a niece and nephew, in an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon the week before. Much harder to find was the fact that two of his brothers, who were also killed, were both known members of Hezbollah.

This seemed to almost justify the attack in many of the headlines. It should be clear that having terror organization linked family members killed by Israeli bombs doesn’t give someone the right to attack random Jews in the U.S.

The third incident took place at Old Dominion University in Virginia, where a gunman, Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, 36, killed one and wounded two others.

The gunman was a naturalized citizen from Sierra Leone who had served eight years in prison for trying to aid ISIS. He shouted “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire on an ROTC class. His attack was brought to a stop by students in the class. He was reportedly killed with a knife by a student.

The quick action prevented further casualties, but Lt. Col. Brandon Shah died. He was a former helicopter pilot with over 600 combat hours and two Bronze Stars and was an ROTC leader at the university.

The attacker had been a member of the Virginia Army National Guard before quitting after hearing radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki lectures. Prosecutors who sent him to prison said Jalloh had hoped to do something similar to the shootings at Fort Hood.

Following a trip to Nigeria to make contact with ISIS members, the FBI set up a sting, and he was arrested after buying weapons.

In this case and with the two American-born bomb throwers in New York, it is said they were radicalized online.

The same people who warn about the evils of Islamophobia have no hesitation in shouting from the rooftops about the danger of Christian nationalists. Yet, polling shows roughly 30 percent of our population hold views deemed “right-wing Christian nationalist”.

So we shouldn’t label every Muslim in the country a terrorist or every “Christian nationalist” as dangerous.

But we also shouldn’t ignore or try to obscure that some are. - Frank Mercer