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 June 4, 2025)

Guest Editorial - In praise of small towns

(Published June 4, 2025)

Living in a small town has changed over the years, but the core experience remains pretty much the same as ever. Which is good.

It’s not exactly Mayberry, if such a thing really ever existed. Technology has led to many changes.

My father always said the invention of the steel-belted radial tire put a real hurt on small towns. Before then, the high likelihood of a flat tire kept people shopping close to home.
He may have been right, but a lot of different variables came together to slow the prospects of small towns

It’s true, in a small town, there are certain disadvantages, compared to living in the more densely populated locales, but a lot of positives, too.

Just, for example, there isn’t one of every single brand of restaurant chain. Most small towns have one national fast food joint, if that. On the other hand, in a small town, when you go out to eat, you probably know the person at the cash register, the one who waits on you and whoever is cooking your food.

You come to take for granted the kind of personalized service you get in small towns. The big cities have got a lot more stores, but they are primarily there to move merchandise; Small town merchants need to make sales, but they’re a part of the community, and they are genuinely concerned about earning your repeat business.

A group of us reflected back on our high school days a while back. Most were in graduating classes under 100 students, but one guy’s class was over 1,000. It was interesting comparing and contrasting.

All of us from the small schools knew every member of our class, and most of them since elementary school. We may not have liked each and every one, but we sure knew them. The big city guy said there were large numbers of class members he didn’t know; and, at graduation, he marched between two students he only kind of knew by sight.

Sports was maybe the most telling. Mr. City didn’t play on the football or baseball teams, which he loved. He wasn’t good enough to make the cut. All of us small town guys participated in every sport in which we were interested. Most rode the bench early on, but all of us lettered as upperclassmen. We never had to worry about being cut.

Small towns have taken a hit over the last several decades. Jobs aren’t as plentiful, and big box retailers plus the internet have made it much tougher for merchants to stay afloat.

Once upon a time not all that long ago, there was a family on every 40-or 80-acre tract of land. There were usually several children in that family.

Modern machinery has made it possible for a single operater to work acreage well beyond anything imagined in those days. Now those little homesteads mostly stand vacant or were bulldozed long ago. The loss of families is reflected in the populations of the counties and school attendance.

It’s too bad, because there is a certain quality of life that is missed in the areas with heavier population. Call it a neighborly feeling.

It’s true that, in most of our small rural towns, there may be a rough neighborhood; but, if your car breaks down, you can walk a couple of blocks and be back in a good one. Heck, commute times are just a few minutes even if you work all the way across town.

This musing got started because I came across the following which someone sent me a long time back. I no longer know who it was, and it didn’t include an author’s name, but I think it’s worth sharing.

Growing up in a small town
1. You can name almost everyone you graduated with in high school.
2. You know what FHA, 4-H, and FFA mean.
3. You went to parties at a pasture, barn, gravel pit, river bank, or in the middle of a dirt road.
4. You used to “drag/cruise” Main Street or the highway.
5. It was cool to date someone from a neighboring town.
6. The whole school went to the same party after graduation.
7. You didn’t give directions by street references. Turn by Nelson’s house; go two blocks to Anderson’s house; then head south at the old ice plant; and it’s four houses left of the track field.
8. You couldn’t help but date a friend’s ex-boyfriend/girlfriend.
9. Your car stayed filthy because of the dirt roads, and you will never own a dark vehicle for this reason.
10. The town next to yours was considered “trashy” or “snooty”, but was actually just like your town.
11. You referred to anyone with a house newer than 1950 as the “rich” people.
12. The people in the big city dressed funny, and then you picked up the trend two years later.
13. Anyone you wanted could be found at the local gas station, the Dairy Queen (if your town was big enough to have one), or pool hall.
14. The coaches suggested you haul hay for the summer to get stronger.
15. Directions were given by using the stoplight as a reference...if you had one. Not in our small town.
16. When you decided to walk somewhere, five people would pull over and ask if you wanted a ride.
17. Your teachers called you by your older siblings’ names.
18. You could charge at any local store or write checks without any ID.
19. You started driving a pickup or tractor before you were 10 years old.
20. The guys kept their guns in their car so they could hunt after school.
21. They had been hunting with a gun since they were seven years old.
22. Eight out of 10 high school boys could tune a car’s engine, and four out of 10 could rebuild that engine.
23. There was a huge crowd in town on Saturday nights.
24. Farmers actually traded eggs, milk, cream, and chickens for groceries and other goods at some of the local stores.
25. Most people went by a nickname.
26. You got a warm feeling reading this because you know it is true. And, if you are like most of us, you wouldn’t have wanted to have been raised anywhere else.

It was the best! - Frank Mercer

Guest Editorial - Now they can see it

(Published May 28, 2025)

Don’t you love it when a dam breaks and a flood of information comes blasting through.

The story of former President Joe Biden’s physical and cognitive decline in office looked like it had reached flood stage a ways back, but the true deluge struck recently.

That coincided with the release of a new book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson titled, Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again. (The title is longer than some books.)

Chalk this one up as one of a long series of tell-alls, which come out after they could have made a difference. Since it is perfectly safe now for the formerly Biden-adoring media to notice Mr. Biden’s obvious decline, they are doing so with gusto.

Democrats and their affiliated media are still getting over the shock of losing the White House and both branches of Congress. The search for where to place the blame is on, and the new favorite scapegoat is the former president.

There’s even a minor “mea culpa” of sorts, but with excuses along the lines of, “We should have seen/reported/done something about it, and we would have, but we were tricked by a cover-up.”
Right, because it was so well hidden.

The problem with that approach is that it wasn’t much of a cover-up. The full extent was obfuscated, but the truth was there to be seen.

Right wing media saw the president’s decline quite plainly. This was written off by Mr. Biden’s supporters as pure fantasy and propaganda. They even coined the term “cheap-fakes” when video evidence was presented.

Democrats went so far as to accuse members of their own party questioning the official narrative, that Mr. Biden was at his finest, of trying to help get Donald Trump elected. Yikes, for a Democrat, that could be the political kiss of death, so nearly all toed the line.

Finally, coinciding with the release of this book, there appears to be a readiness to drag the truth into the sunlight.

One of the tales getting the most press concerned A-list actor George Clooney’s reaction to not being recognized by Mr. Biden. This was at a rally shortly after the disastrous presidential debate.

Movie stars hate not being recognized when they want to be. According to the book, Mr. Clooney thought the president looked severely diminished, as if he’d aged a decade. This was the same event where former President Barack Obama stepped forward and appeared to take charge, rescuing Mr. Biden and preventing even greater embarrassment.

Remember, it was Mr. Clooney’s op-ed expressing doubts about Mr. Biden’s ability to serve another term which seemed to trigger the behind-the-scenes moves which ultimately ousted Mr. Biden from the ticket. Before that the campaign looked ready to putter along to the end. Apparently, when the Hollywood elite start to oppose a Democratic candidate, things get serious.

Painted as a villain in much of this coverage is former First Lady Jill Biden. The reporting says that she was the “worst enabler” and worked hard to hide Mr. Biden’s decline. She has been described as demanding and manipulative, a mastermind at hiding the truth. That’s very convenient for Democrats. Gee whiz, fault lies with someone who was unelected, not in an actual party leadership role, and whose time on the political stage has come to an end.

Which is, of course, nonsense.

Mrs. Biden certainly played her part, surely with a number of motives, including that of a good wife trying to protect her spouse. Others, like hanging onto power and keeping the family influence peddling business alive don’t seem so admirable, though.

However, there is no way Mrs. Biden could keep a cover-up going without an enormous amount of help. The president of the United States is one of the most public figures in the world. It’s a 24-hour-a-day job and the president is rarely not surrounded by staff.

The book claims there was talk of putting the president in a wheelchair so he wouldn’t fall down (or wander off, probably) but not until after the election. This would confirm that those around the president knew he was severely diminished, but that nobody saw fit to break from the pack and tell the truth.

If anyone was leaking, it wasn’t to someone willing to run with it.

Even when presidential norms were shattered, it was always explained away or denied.

Like rarely holding cabinet meetings (only one in 2024, led by Mrs. Biden) and squeezing the cabinet secretaries out of the inner circle.

Or, having cards with pictures and names of reporters to be called upon at the rare instances Mr. Biden met with press. Included, were rough outlines of the questions about to be asked. That was unheard of before and should have started the press on a hunt for the truth.

The focus of these revelations seems to be about how the situation foiled Democratic election chances. That really isn’t the most disturbing part of the story. The big question remains, who was running the country?

Harry S Truman had a sign on his desk which read, “The buck stops here.” That’s what we expect when electing a chief executive and commander in chief. Were the country’s most important decisions being made by someone with only a few hours of clarity a day? Or, was there a group of people performing the presidential functions? That would be awfully close to a coup.

Joe Biden had such diminished capacity that handlers wouldn’t let him speak to small groups of people without a teleprompter. Those surrounding him must have been concerned he wasn’t capable of performing the most important duties of the job.

What would have happened in the event of that all-important “2 a.m. phone call”? Perhaps, he would have ordered two scoops of mint chocolate chip.

There hasn’t been any reporting clarifying if serious thought was being given to removing Mr. Biden from office. (When Mr. Trump sneezes, there is hue and cry for evoking the 25th Amendment.)
In the case of Mr. Biden, once he stepped out of the race, all worry about his ability to lead seemed to evaporate.

That’s a more shocking detail than anything coming to light in the tell-alls. -Frank Mercer

Guest Editorial - Good, Bad, and Dumb

(Published May 21, 2025)

We’re surrounded by things, good, bad, and dumb. Often a mixture of the three. Since this is my space, I get to call them as I see them, so here we go.

First off, graduation ceremonies are taking place all around the area. To those graduating, I’d like to say, good job, good luck, and I hope good things are coming your way.

For some graduates, it means seeking further educational opportunities, headed toward another degree in the future.

For others, it’s the end of a phase of life. School days are over, and it’s time for something else. You may be done with classes, but never stop learning. There is still a great deal to discover.

As graduates, you’ve likely been told that the future is in your hands. That is true, but there is no promise everything will go your way, or it will be easy. Success comes from effort and is measured in different ways. Set your own goals, and decide your own path.

It’s your responsibility now.

Also under good, Cardinal Robert Prevost was announced as Pope Leo XIV, the first American pope. The new pontiff is a Chicago native. For those wondering, his brother noted he is a White Sox fan, and never a Cubs fan.

He spent much of his life as a missionary in South America, and was a Bishop in Peru. Most recently, he was in charge of the office in the Vatican which makes bishop appointments.

For non-Catholics, the selection process can get a little “inside baseball”; however, the selection is watched with such interest, because the pope is more than just a religious leader. He is also a world leader, whose actions make a difference in the lives of people of other faiths as well.

Under the category of bad, the never-ending conflict over the Kashmir region between India and Pakistan turned violent last week, and fears of escalation spiked.

A ceasefire was announced over the weekend, but tensions date back to British partition, and that is unchanged.

The reason it makes the whole world jumpy is because of the nuclear arsenals of both countries. Should the conflict get out of control, it could be catastrophic for the world.

Right now, the conflict has ratcheted down, but chances of another, even hotter confrontation in the future isn’t zero, so danger remains.

Still, it is also a good reminder why other nations of the world should be opposed to expanding the nuclear brotherhood. And, specifically, the big effort should be made to keep Iran from joining the club.

It’s not enough to make agreements that slow down their push toward nuclear armament, it must be stopped entirely. It’s naive to think that oceans will always be enough to protect us from a fundamentalist regime, armed with a nukes, which hates us.

Even if they haven’t developed an intercontinental ballistic missile today, nothing says they won’t. When the clerics took over almost 50 years ago, nobody was imagining them getting this close to having a nuke.

Also under the heading of bad, is the obvious upswing of rewarding people for awful behavior via crowd funding.

A few weeks ago, we mentioned here the case of a Texas teenager charged with stabbing to death another high schooler at a track meet. The victim was white, and the alleged killer is black. After charges were filed, he became something of a cause célèbre. An activist-driven fundraising campaign raked in over $500k.

Next, we were treated to the spectacle of a white woman hurling racial slurs at a black child. That behavior has now been rewarded through crowd funding to the tune of over $700,000 in just days. She claimed she feared for her life from online mobs. I don’t doubt that’s true. But, no way did the behavior warrant a fortune.

This influx of cash has been excused by some on the right as “turn-about is fair play” tied with the Texas incident. It is possible for both things to be bad.

Crowd funding has a great history of being used for good purposes, from small causes, to great ones. You often see stories of money being raised for very worthy examples, like disaster relief, or helping cancer victims pay their bills.

But the same mechanism which allows people globally to discover charitable causes, can also reach huge numbers of people who offer cash for, shall we say, less than angelic cases.

We may have reached a point where people start to get themselves caught up in bad situations on the chance of earning enough notoriety to get rich.

Something close to that seems to be going on with a college student involved in a viral anti-semitic event he filmed and posted himself.

The Temple college student was in a sports bar and got a waitress to hold a sign reading “**** the Jews.” After video of the incident went online, there was swift outrage, and the Jewish owner of the bar chain reached out to the young man and offered to send him to tour the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz as a learning experience. The owner said the young man expressed remorse and agreed to go.

Later, that young man flipped 180 degrees and started a crowd funding page, now claiming to be a victim of cancel culture and defending his First Amendment rights. Only he knows the reasons for the change of heart, but the plea for money is suspect.

Finally, in the dumb category, we have examples of folks making poor decisions while on vacation.

A Florida man was gored by a buffalo at Yellowstone National park. This is not an unheard-of occurrence, and park rules call for visitors to stay at least 25 yards from such critters. Apparently, this guy got closer.

Bison may look peaceful, and slow, but visitors would do better to think of them as big, surprisingly fast, and potentially ill tempered.

The other tourist in the news was an American visiting the Colosseum in Rome, who gruesomely impaled himself on a spiked fence he was attempting to climb, in order to get a better picture. It was a struggle for paramedics to free him so he could be rushed to surgery. Impalings at the Colosseum are something best left in the past.

People die every year trying to get that awesome photo, often falling off things while concentrating on a selfie.

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it’s not worth dying for. - Frank Mercer

Guest Editorial - 100 Days

(Published May 14, 2025)

President Donald Trump recently completed his first 100 days in office. For a second time.

This time was substantially different than the last.

Starting his first term, Mr. Trump was the ultimate outsider. That led to him filling key roles with members of the establishment GOP who knew how government worked, but didn’t necessarily share his agenda.

This time, we saw a man who had eight years to reflect on how to do it better, and not fall into the same traps.

It’s pretty clear the GOP has mostly accepted Mr. Trump’s vision, so you didn’t see his top picks apologizing for just associating with him.

The Trump team came in with a plan ready to go and swiftly moved to make things happen. The president did not shy away from burning political capital either, and not all of his decisions have been popular. A look at the polls will confirm that statement.

First, came a slew of executive orders. Those are always a double- edged sword because there is no guarantee any of them will last beyond the term.

A number of his orders were needed to re-enact ones he made in his first term, that were subsequently erased by executive actions from Joe Biden.

Executive orders are not a real substitute for legislation; but, in recent years, Congress seems to be happy to let presidents usurp their role, in order to move a stalled agenda.

That has led to a much greater shift in power toward the president, which not all of us agree is a good thing, whoever the man in office may be.

That being said, the most evident success of Mr. Trump’s first hundred days was using that power to nearly completely shut down the southern border to illegal immigration.

There had been an unprecedented flood of the “undocumented” over the border during Mr. Biden’s term for a pretty simple reason...Democrats wanted it to happen. Meanwhile, they made excuses, ranging from it was imaginary, to only legislation could fix it.

Mr. Trump put lie to that in short order. What was a torrent is now a trickle due in large part to a simple willingness to take action.

He has also been taking efforts to fulfill another campaign promise, deporting those illegally here, starting with dangerous criminals.

Democrats have jumped all over this in opposition, even taking up the cause of one man who was mistakenly sent back to El Salvador. It hasn’t played out the best for them, because reports indicate he is most likely a member of the dangerous MS-13 gang.

Immigration law still needs to be fixed (including the loophole which allows a years-long stay for anyone who claims asylum). Mr. Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies act seems like a stretch, though. So we’ll have to see where it ends up finally with the courts.

Another win by Team Trump has been the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

DOGE has behaved in the least bureaucratic way of any government group in memory. Instead of endless studies, or blue ribbon committees, always pondering and never acting, DOGE has been steamrolling waste.

Few Americans disagree with the idea that the federal budget is bloated or that money is wasted on unnecessary, even ridiculous, expenditures.

DOGE grabbed headlines with stories of cuts which could save billions of dollars with the stroke of a pen. As abuses were cataloged, it became hard to keep perspective.

The scale was thought provoking. One could easily brush off wasteful expenditures because they were only hundreds of thousands of dollars, not multi-millions like others. Let’s not forget: it’s the cumulative total that will be our downfall if not stopped.

Another target for Mr. Trump has been the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) agenda which had gotten so much attention over the last several years. Mr. Trump said, “We will terminate every diversity, equity, and inclusion program across the entire federal government.”

He began with returning to merit-based hiring and promotions across the government and gone farther from there. DEI is one of those areas where a great divide exists in the American public, but his actions don’t seem to have budged the polls significantly.

Democrats have struggled to fight back against the tidal wave of Trump actions. They are in disarray following the election and are torn between moving toward the center or continuing to embrace the far left.

Luckily for them, while they flounder, there is a group willing to block nearly every move the president makes. That is of course members of the judiciary.

Since his first day in office, like clockwork, there have been judges willing to issue nationwide injunctions on almost every executive order.

Republicans are enraged that a district court judge can issue a ruling which blocks an action nationwide. It is frustrating, but also a two-way street. Conservative-leaning judges blocked a number of Mr. Biden’s orders, and the right was fine with it.

Mr. Trump has had some stumbles along the way as well. Most notably his tariff war. It’s too early to know how this will play out. If the president is correct, then it will result in an economic boom. However, there is also reason to believe he is courting disaster. Let’s all hope this ends up in the positive category.

Also not a glowing success is his efforts on the war in Ukraine where there has been very little progress. Vladimir Putin is, without doubt, one of the worst people in the world today. Getting him to stop without ending up with an expanded war remains a tough challenge.

A final ding on the first 100 days has been in regards to Canada. Mr. Trump is the ultimate troll. Like speculating about a third term to make opponents’ heads explode.

Yet, his mocking references to Canada as the 51st state, followed by tariffs, seem to have resulted in ways he likely didn’t intend. Their far left party there got a new lease on life so, instead of a like minded prime minister, Mr. Trump will deal with another out-and-out opponent.

That’s an unnecessary black eye caused in part by taking a joke too far. - Frank Mercer

Guest Editorial - In the news

(Published February 12, 2025)

A crazy and often terrible news week occurred recently, which has made it hard to focus on one topic, so let’s not.

• Leading the news were the deaths of 67 people in the tragic collision of an airliner and a Blackhawk helicopter in Washington, D.C.

The nation reacted with shock partly because the last crash of a commercial airliner in the U.S. was in 2009.

Commercial flight remains the safest way to travel, but that doesn’t mean people don’t have a gut reaction of horror over the incident. Love it or hate it, flying isn’t natural for humans. Most people are aware, from the time they leave the ground until landing that their fate is not in their own hands.

It’s too early to know exactly what went wrong, but speculation started immediately. Some blamed the military helicopter, others blamed miscommunication with air traffic control.

President Donald Trump used the incident to talk about past DEI efforts at the Federal Aviation Administration, and news reports said he was placing blame for the crash on those initiatives.

Others cited perceived hostility toward federal employees in the first days of the Trump administration as a potential cause.

It is unfortunate that everything has to be debated as political the first second it happens. A satirical web site summed up those reactions this way: “Preliminary Report Confirms Tragedy Was The Fault, Of Whichever Political Party You Don't Like.”

The National Transportation Safety Board is known for its careful and thorough investigations, so eventually the details will be revealed.

If there are obvious problems which can be fixed, then that should happen immediately, but casting blame should wait until facts are known.

• The Trump administration has been moving with lightning speed to enact policies and clear out obstacles.

It’s almost as if the president had four years to analyze what went wrong the first time around and what he would do differently.

One of the most obvious differences is with his choices of people to take key positions. During the first term, Mr. Trump was the ultimate outsider, and his picks weren’t always on board with what he was trying to accomplish. They tended to play nice within established norms and took a real beating from the press and the opposition.

Honestly, he left in place or promoted plenty of people who hated his guts and thought he was a Russian stooge or a tyrant. It didn’t always turn out well.

This time around is different, and his choices seem to be on the same page with him. That’s not to say every pick is necessarily stellar, but it seems unlikely that the president will be blindsided by hidden agendas.

While the process has gone the president’s way so far, question marks still remain for a few choices.

Robert Kennedy Jr. faced a tough confirmation process for multiple reasons. His stances on vaccines have raised doubts from senators in both parties. His refusal to state clearly that he doesn’t think vaccines cause autism could an overwhelming obstacle.

Also, don’t forget that, until about 15 minutes ago, he was a Democrat. That’s enough to make GOP senators dubious, and the fact that he ran against Joe Biden and is now working for Donald Trump has Dems enraged.

Also, the guy just says and does some genuinely weird things.

The most entertaining part of the hearings, so far, has been Senator Bernie Sanders losing his temper on multiple occasions. He got worked up over onesies sold by an organization, which Mr. Kennedy founded, which have slogans like, “Unvaxxed, Unafraid.”

It really hit the fan when Mr. Kennedy accused Senator Sanders of being the single biggest receiver of pharmaceutical money in Congress. The esteemed senator became so angry it looked like he would need a doctor.

Tulsi Gabbard had her own stumbling block during her quest to become director of national intelligence. She refused to say that she thought Edward Snowden was a traitor.

This position doesn’t help her with GOP senators who, for the most part, would quite strongly agree that he is a traitor for leaking highly classified information. Gabbard is also a former Democratic presidential candidate, and that party has their knives well sharpened for her.
In case anyone had any doubts, Kash Patel, Mr. Trump’s pick for FBI director, proved he is not one to back down under pressure.

Democratic senators tried their best to paint him as someone whose goal is to simply get even with the FBI for all the prior Trump investigations.

After various attacks. he had one of the most solid responses given so far. “If the best attacks on me are going to be false accusations and grotesque mischaracterizations, the only thing this body is doing is defeating the credibility of the men and women at the FBI,” Patel said. “I stood with them here in this country, in every theater of war we have. I was on the ground in service of this nation, and any accusations leveled against me that I would somehow put political bias before the Constitution are grotesquely unfair.”

Only time will tell on those three nominees.

• The Kansas City Chiefs went for a Superbowl three-peat against the Philadelphia Eagles (this was written befre the game).

As someone who doesn’t live and breathe pro football, it’s been interesting to see the Chiefs go from scrappy, beloved underdogs just a few years ago to one of the most hated teams ever.
How dare they win so much!

What I didn’t know, was just how many sports stories were generated on even the most obscure details. Apparently I clicked one too many times, and the algorithm is now flooding my news feed with Chiefs, Chiefs, Chiefs.

The difference between the headlines and the story are often hilarious. My favorite, so far, has been this one: “Patrick Mahomes Admits to Feeling ‘Sick’ After Major News.

Was this some illness which will impact his play in the big game?

Nope, it seems he doesn’t like a trade between the NBA Mavericks and Lakers.

That one should be the example in the dictionary under “click bait.” - Frank Mercer

Guest Editorial - Looking back

(Published January 15, 2025)

The year 2024 is now in the rear-view mirror. There were too many big stories to go through here, but let’s look back at some which I found interesting over the last 12 months.

Last year turned out to be one of the most fascinating presidential campaigns ever, even if it started out looking like a dud. Early on, there was every indication it would be a repeat of the 2020 face-off and most Americans less than enthused.

Neither man is a spring chicken. Donald Trump is 78. Coincidently, that’s exactly the same age as George W. Bush, who finished his presidential terms 16 years ago; and Bill Clinton who left office 24 years back.

Joe Biden is, of course, even older than them by three years or so.

During the course of the campaign, so many odd things kept happening, it started seeming like a bad movie script.

Mr. Trump was convicted on politically motivated charges and an effort was on to make more lawfare come to a head during the campaign.

And, of course, there was the debate where Mr. Biden proved to be suffering the mental decline Republicans had noticed for years; but, until then, Democrats couldn’t see and denied.

Mr. Biden was shortly forced out; and, suspiciously quickly, Vice President Kamala Harris miraculously ended up with the nomination. This was in spite of never getting a single primary vote. A campaign fund of hundreds of millions of dollars which could only go to her helped make that so. She ended up spending over $1 billion in just a few short weeks. Talk about pumping money into the economy.

Harris treated us to a campaign long on celebrities, vibes, and feelings and short on substance. V.P. Harris was also forced to attempt to balance an effort to not be saddled with the Biden Administration’s unpopular policies, while also taking credit in other areas to show she had the chops to be chief executive.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump survived two assassination attempts, one which left him blooded and defiant on a stage in Pennsylvania. This was nearly unimaginable, but soon left in the dust of the news cycle.
The biggest story of 2024 is yet to be written, and it is unclear when or if it ever will be. That is the story of who has actually been running the country.

When it looked as if Mr. Biden was going to stay in the race and be a sure-fire loser, there were plenty of voices raised in his party and the media to warn about his inability to lead. When he dropped out of the race, all those concerns disappeared overnight.

Seemingly forgotten was the fact that the most powerful country in the world was being led by someone who was most likely in serious mental decline. Now, maybe Mr. Biden has had the misfortune to only appear dottering while on public display and he is fully carrying out his duties.

That seems really doubtful. If he’s not in charge, who is; political insiders, his staff, or wife Jill? Whoever has been calling the shots, it seems likely it wasn’t the man elected to the presidency.

The fact that all of this went on under the noses of a press which is supposed to be a watchdog is disgraceful. They can still dig when it suits them. Note the endless “scoops” about Donald Trump for the last eight years.

It seems 2024 was the year the legacy media revealed once and for all just how in the bag they are for the Democratic Party. It was readily apparent, from refusing to see the president’s infirmities, to faithfully parroting talking points of the Harris campaign, to endlessly flogging fears of an apocalyptic Trump return to power.

One surprising bit of political news was Senator John Fetterman turning out to be a voice of reason. He was elected in 2022 as a far-left candidate.

On top of that, he was barely able to campaign following a debilitating stroke. He gave every appearance at the time of being just another spoke in the Progressive wheel.

Since then, he has urged his own party to dial back some of their most leftist positions. He boldly stood up for Israel when the loudest Democratic voices were offering condemnation.

He has sought moderation in the level of animosity between the two parties, telling Democrats to “chill out” about the incoming Trump administration. “If you’re rooting against the president, you’re rooting against the nation,” he said.

We need to hear more of that on both sides of the aisle if we’re ever going to bridge the current divide.

Elsewhere, space flight has again become common enough to almost be routine...except when it isn’t.

The two test pilots of the Boeing Starliner after having to use the International Space Station as a life raft.

The crew took off back in June and expected to spend about a week in space. It turned out their ride had significant bugs, and it was deemed too dangerous to send them home in it. Instead they’ve been marooned on the ISS trying to thumb a ride home.

NASA now says it looks like it will be March or April before empty seats on a SpaceX flight become available. Stranded for nine months is nothing compared to the time those aboard the S.S. Minnow were castaways, but it’s an eternity when you expected to get home before the milk in the fridge could go sour.

More positive space news was the story of Ed Dwight, the first black to be selected for astronaut training way back in JFK’s term.

He was a hot-shot test pilot when picked in 1961 to potentially be one of America’s first astronauts. To even get a shot with the level of prejudice at that time says a lot about his abilities as a pilot. That skill wasn’t enough to overcome the cards stacked against him, and he didn’t get a shot at space.

After leaving the Air Force, Mr. Dwight became a renowned sculptor, but apparently the longing to travel into space never went away.

He finally got his chance in May on a Blue Origin suborbital flight: and at 90 years and 8 months, surpassed William Shatner as the oldest person to ever fly in space.

That’s a different “first” than the one he originally sought, but a record still. - Frank Mercer

Guest Editorial - Big divide

(Published December 25, 2024)

Two recent events in the news ended up reflecting a big divide in some people’s attitudes.

Reactions to the murder of a health insurance CEO and the aquital of a subway good samaritan resulted in wildly different responses on both sides of the issues.

A jury in New York City reached a not-guilty verdict in the trial of Daniel Penny for the death of a homeless man who was causing a frightening disturbance on a subway.

The opposing takes on the verdict could easily lead you to believe they are talking about two different cases.

The narratives agree on only a few points. They are: A homeless, mentally unwell man, named Jordan Neely, was acting in a frightening, even threatening, manner in a subway car when Mr. Penny put him in a submission hold. Mr. Neely subsequently died.

For some on the left, it’s a story about race and white privilege. They claim Mr. Penny, a white Marine Corps veteran, choked Mr. Neely to death because he was black and being loud.

They claim it is a further example of how people of color can be murdered with impunity by white people. Protesters shouted chants conveying this message so loudly outside the courthouse, it nearly resulted in a mistrial.

The other position is the one which the jury accepted. Mr. Neely, who had a long history of criminal charges, including assault, was frightening passengers of mixed races. Mr. Penny subdued him and it went disastrously wrong.

Mr. Penny didn’t testify, but told police before being informed of Mr. Neely’s death, “I just wanted to keep him from getting to people. I’m not trying to kill the guy.”

The after-the-verdict responses didn’t follow strict political lines. A Democratic city councilman posted, “Justice has been served for a U.S. Marine who bravely stepped up to protect fellow New Yorkers during a moment of danger.”

But a progressive council member wrote, “Jordan Neely deserved better than the systems that allow for, and justify, extrajudicial white supremacist violence against black people.” Those two quotes pretty much sum up the big divide.

Most on both sides agree there is a problem with the current treatment of the mentally ill, including the state’s governor, Kathy Hochul, who said, “This case was a tragic reminder of the mental health crisis that is hitting every corner of New York...”

Jordan Neely’s life was a sad one. When he was 14, his mother was murdered by his stepfather and was placed in the foster care system. For a while, he made money as a Michael Jackson impersonator. His final years were spent living on the street, struggling with mental problems. He could be violent and had recently spent time in jail for punching a woman, breaking her nose and orbital bone.

Few would deny that Mr. Neely needed help and didn’t get enough of it. There is a big problem in large cities of homeless people, often mentally ill, living in the streets in deplorable conditions. As a nation, we take so seriously our right to live as we choose, that people incapable of making rational choices fall through the cracks and suffer.

Not just progressives saw race in this case. Others saw it as a white man involved in the choking death of a black man being prosecuted only because the case was politically sensitive. New York prosecutor Alvin Bragg is more famous for being lenient with alleged criminals, including some manslaughter cases.

Mr. Penny’s legal perils don’t end here, though. Mr. Neely’s father filed a civil case against him, seeking “a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.”

A further bad thing prompted by this case is that it will surely cause some people to take no action when they could save lives. They’ll fear the same notoriety given Mr. Penny. That is a shame, always need more, not fewer good samaritans.

The second situation shows an even greater degree of divide for some segments of the population.

After Brian Thompson, CEO of United Healthcare, was shot down by an assassin in the streets of New York, some saw it as a cause for humor or even celebration. Then, when unmasked images of the suspect’s face were distributed nationwide, many swooned over his looks like some matinee idol.

Certain people found the killing to be wonderful. United Healthcare had to turn off comments on their social media posts concerning the murder. They were flooded with many thousands of jeering responses, including clapping and laughing emojis.

Some people posted things like, “I’m sorry, prior authorization is required for thoughts and prayers,” and “Does he have a history of shootings? Denied coverage.”

It wasn’t just mostly anonymous trolls making light of the situation. NBC’s Saturday Night Live made jokes during Weekend Update.

Even prominent, “serious” people spoke out seeming to side with the shooter, including college professors, politicians, and members of the media. For example, former Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz said she felt “joy”. She later pulled back. “Maybe not joy but certainly not empathy.”

Two things can be true at the same time. The American health care system can be expensive, nearly impossible to navigate, and you can hate your health insurance company’s policies. Also, murder is wrong.
We seem fairly close to returning to a time where significant numbers of people believed the only way to effect change was by violence.

In the 1970s, revolutionary radicals set off a lot of bombs, and shot people, while accomplishing nothing.

For those who want change, working through the system remains the only way. The proof is all the change we’ve seen over the decades.
It may be slow, but at least you get there without blood on your hands.

When we get to a point where our political stances make it impossible for a large swath of the population to make a distinction between an attempt to help going tragically wrong, and cold-blooded murder, we’ll be in big trouble. - Frank Mercer

Guest Editorial - Veterans Day

(Published November 13, 2024)

Hopefully, you cast your vote in the Nov. 5 election. If you did, be sure to remember that it is just one of the many freedoms we enjoy thanks in no small part to a group which really doesn’t get all the thanks they deserve.

I’m talking about our veterans.

Veterans Day was last Monday, and it gives all of us a chance to say thank you to those who served and risked everything to keep our country free.

The Census Bureau says that there are abut 16.2 million veterans in the country. That seems like a lot, but it is a tiny 6.2 percent of our population.

Compare that to 1960 when the population of the country was much, much smaller, but there were 23 million vets. Those who served in the military during World War I, World War II and Korea made up 40% of all males over the age of 14.

Today, all the veterans of the first World War have passed on; the surviving WWII vets are at least in their 90s; and the Vietnam veterans are now past retirement age.

Since 1973 and the end of the draft, every member of our armed services has been a volunteer. Our most recent conflicts were waged by those who chose to enlist. Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan were all massive military efforts, but were accomplished by only a handful of the population as a whole.

Go back to the 1960s and literally everyone either was or had served in the military, had a close family member who did, or at the very least had multiple friends who served.

As a kid, the dads of my friends combined would represent every branch of the military. Off the top of my head, I recall one paratrooper, another who was in the Battle of the Bulge, and a survivor of the Bataan Death March.

Today, it is safe to say a large percentage of youngsters don’t know anyone in active service or a veteran. Which makes it hard for them to attach a face to those men and women willing to give all to protect our freedoms.

That is one reason it’s great to see the Veterans Day programs which often take place at schools. It gives youngsters a chance to realize those heroes they hear about are represented right in their community.

The late Jack Krier had his say in a column which ran back when the battles were still raging in Iraq and Afghanistan: “As our great country observes Veterans Day, the very least we can do is to tell each and every veteran ‘Thank You’ because without them America simply wouldn’t be America. All we have, we owe to them!

“It behooves us to do more for those who have done – and are doing – so much for us. We must always remember how much we appreciate their loyal service. As they dodge bullets and fight the war on terror, we are enjoying the benefits of their sacrifices: We vote; we enjoy freedom of speech; going to the mall; buying our dinner ... you name it.

“And, while we are at it, be sure to thank a vet, any vet, for their service.”

Jack also compiled the following.

VETERANS DAY HISTORY
Veterans Day gives Americans the opportunity to celebrate the bravery and sacrifice of all U.S. veterans.

Veterans Day was formerly known as Armistice Day and was originally established as a U.S. legal holiday to honor the end of World War I, which officially took place Nov. 11, 1918. In legislation that was passed in 1938, Nov. 11 was “dedicated to the cause of world peace and to be hereafter celebrated as Armistice Day.” As such, the new legal holiday honored only World War I veterans.

In 1954, after having been through both World War II and the Korean War, the 83rd U.S Congress – at the urging of the veterans service organizations – amended the Act of 1938 by striking out the word “Armistice” and inserting the world “Veterans.” With the approval of this legislation June 1, 1954, Nov. 11 became a day to honor American veterans of all wars.

In 1968, the Uniforms Holiday Bill ensured three-day weekends for federal employees by celebrating four national holidays on Mondays, including Veterans Day. Under this bill, Veterans Day was moved to the last Monday of October. However, Sept. 20, 1975, President Gerald Ford signed a law which returned the annual observance of Veterans Day to the original date of Nov. 11. Thankfully, those in Congress have not tinkered with this observance since then.

One last thought: There is a stark difference between Memorial Day and Veterans Day. Memorial Day honors members of the military who died in service to their country or as a result of injuries incurred during battle. Deceased veterans are also remembered on Veterans Day, but the day is set aside to thank and honor living veterans who served honorably in the military – in wartime or peacetime.
Freedom isn’t everywhere.

As we honor those who protect our country, most of us are guilty of taking our many freedoms for granted. News just last week is a reminder of the importance of maintaining them.

The Taliban, rulers of Afghanistan since the U.S. withdrawal, have taken away most of the gains made by women in that country as a result of the U.S. intervention there. The Taliban have steadily turned back the clock and just announced new restrictions on women aimed at keeping them silent in public.

This “vice and virtue” law states, “Whenever an adult woman leaves her home out of necessity, she is obliged to conceal her voice, face, and body.” Translation: Don’t be seen or heard, or risk severe punishment.

That is just the most recent of the Taliban laws to restrict a multitude of behaviors from women. Others include driving a car, owning a smartphone, going to high school or college, looking at men they don’t know, and even speaking to a male doctor.

Elsewhere in the world, CNN reported 29 children in Nigeria age 14-17 could face the death penalty for protesting the high cost-of-living.

Compare the all above to the “oppression” that gets bandied about in U.S. political dialog. It’s easy to see that not only are we light years ahead of some parts of the world, we must remain aware of the importance of protecting our freedoms.

And, though Veterans Day is over, we should be extra thankful for those who keep us free year round. - Frank Mercer

Guest Editorial - How divided

(Published September 11, 2024)

Is it still possible to have a rational discussion about any serious topic in our divided country?

By all appearances the split has never been greater since the Civil War, but our modern situation is making it look like we only accept black or white with no tolerance for a gray area in between.
While we do find a lot to argue about, we must remember all the common beliefs which continue to hold us together.

It is easy to get tied up in the political and cultural strife of the day and forget there is a real world where people go about their lives and getting along really well. People with a Trump flag or a Harris bumper sticker really can live next door without burning down each other’s houses.

With most cases, we find, it’s the distance from other people which helps determine if things go off the rails.

In other words, it’s still true that, when you’re talking about a tense topic at the backyard barbecue, words are likely to remain measured.

However, get behind the keyboard with the shield the internet provides, and it can quickly become more of a donnybrook.

Looming large over it all is the information/entertainment of guests paid to spout opinions on cable news shows who are frequently nearly indistinguishable from the unhinged. If your life is a steady diet of that, it’s easy to decide the whole country is ready to explode.

“You are what you eat,” goes the old saying. Today, when it comes to media, that could be “you are what you consume.”

Our ability to have a calm, reasonable debate over politics has never been a sure thing at any time in our history. As always, it’s frequently tough to remain civil about topics when you’re extremely passionate about them.

Now that many have embraced the methods of the cable news roundtables and the all-out brawl of the internet as acceptable, things have been getting a whole lot rowdier at the local level.
We now have a segment of the population which fervently believes any disagreement with their position must be shouted down. Not just stamped out, but punished.

To have a discussion, both sides must be willing to listen, and express their views in return. It’s a give and take with both sides having the goal of persuasion, even just a little.

Today, it has become easier to attempt to crush all debate. Technology has made this tactic simpler to put into action. You can round up a posse and put that in motion faster than any Old West sheriff could.
The guy who once was ignored while shouting from atop a soapbox can find like thinkers across the country to form a movement.

Combined, a few loud voices joined together can exert tremendous amounts of pressure.

The danger of that doesn’t just exist for politicians and celebrities, but extends to the average person who says something they believe thoughtful and rational, only to see it blown up as insane and hateful. Someone can go from unknown to pariah in the course of hours, without even trying. That doesn’t reflect part of a real divide of the majority, just the power of a special interest group.

It seems that part of our perceived divide is also caused by short attention spans. Not long ago, it was common to sit down and read a multi-day series about a hot topic in your evening newspaper. Most Americans subscribed to one or more of the news magazines which offset the inability to be first by in-depth coverage. You ended up knowing the different sides of a subject.

Today, the headline drives the clicks, and outrage is the surest way to draw you in. That’s why so many are along the lines of “Candidate says super horrible thing.” When the headline is the only thing someone takes away from the story, they end up with all sizzle and no steak.

For a lot of us, politics is a form of entertainment, so we don’t always dig deeper. The three-minute cable news segment or the X post just isn’t up to the task of covering details of any important topic.
What you get is just talking points, repeated and reinforced all around. If all you learn are the talking points, then all you can think about are the talking points.

There is no room for nuances which could reveal our common ground lurking out there.

For activists, if you can boil your opponent down to an “-ist” (racist, sexist, etc.) or tag them with “-phobic”, you can claim the high ground and delegitimize any other viewpoint. Worse than that is the idea is that speech alone is dangerous, that words and punches really aren’t any different. It’s a ridiculous concept, but it is believed by certain segments of the public.

When topics can only be given a thumbs up or down, then it appears there are just two opposite sides on any issue. Any topic - the Gaza conflict, inflation, illegal immigration, race relations, Russia/Ukraine, and so on - get neatly boiled down into slogans.

But, when polling digs deeper or you talk with people holding opposing viewpoints, it is often discovered there are areas of agreement not covered by that absolutist position.

Abortion may be the clearest example. Some oppose it in any situation, while others say it’s just health care and should have no limits. Yet, a majority of Americans believe in some exceptions to either position. They are “Anti, excluding...” or “Pro, except when...,” not one or the other.

When you take into account all of the gray areas that inhabit the spaces in between headline topics, we all still have more in common as Americans than we have differences.
We just need get back to remembering that disagreeing with someone doesn’t make them a monster.

What has joined us together as a country has never been that we all completely agreed. It’s that we share a common set of values and beliefs in spite of our differences.
We have to keep remembering that. - Frank Mercer

Guest Editorial - Next Steps

(Published July 17, 2024)

The DNC has a problem with no easy answers: What do you do with a presidential candidate whom a major number of voters believe is senile?

Following Joe Biden’s disastrous June 27th debate appearance, members of the Democratic elite expressed shock at discovering the president has significant age-related problems.
It’s something that most Americans noticed literally years ago. The stalwarts of the party claim this was new ground for them.

They have a conundrum which has no easy way out. It fact, the issue has way more questions than answers.

Like, is there a way to replace Mr. Biden on the ballot this late, now that all the primaries are over?

Who would that replacement candidate be, and how would they be chosen? The obvious answer is Vice President Kamala Harris, but that thought doesn’t receive universal rejoice within the party, or with the electorate in general.

Still, how could you snub the first female of color ever to hold the post? Especially when the accumulated campaign cash can only transfer to her.

Each issue brings up another, ad infinitum. The first problem would be getting Mr. Biden to step aside, something he says he will not do.

It takes a unique type of ego to think you could, or should be president. Mr. Biden still seems to have that in abundance even as his other attributes have declined. He told George Stephanopoulos, “I don’t think anybody's more qualified to be President or win this race than me.”

While running a campaign largely based on the idea that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, when asked how he’ll feel in January if he loses the race, Mr. Biden said, “I’ll feel as long as I gave it my all and I did the good as job as I know I can do, that’s what this is about.”

So, for Mr. Biden, is it more important that he stay in office or that Mr. Trump be defeated? We appear to have the answer.

The Biden family has rallied behind the president and are pushing him to stay the course. This has led to a string of negative stories about Jill Biden for the first time, including that she may actually be running the country. Edith Wilson anyone?

It’s been reported that first son Hunter has participated in meetings with top staff. That seems a less than genius political move, given all the turmoil surrounding him.

Speculation has always been high that the Biden family businesses rely on their connection to Joe, so they have millions of reasons to want him to stay in the race.

Certain members of the DNC also don’t want Mr. Biden to quit. They see him as the best chance to win in the fall. They have adopted a strategy of claiming it was just a bad night, and the only time ever, ever, ever, the president has been that way. (Of course, just a couple of weeks ago, these same people claimed Mr. Biden had mental capabilities and physical fitness beyond that of mere mortals.)

Now the excuses for the terrible debate performance are: a cold, over preparation, bad makeup, and the lying eyes of the American people.

It’s unclear what chance of success pushing that story has, but since the first poll after the debate showed 33% of people watching thought Mr. Biden actually won...? Hey, maybe.

Others in the party would like to see the president step aside for a younger candidate. They list V.P. Harris or two governors, Gavin Newsom of California and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, as go-to choices. All would solve the issue of having someone in their 80s on the ballot, and send forth someone ready to enact a vigorous campaign.

The downside is that the Democratic rank and file would have had no opportunity to vet any of these candidates through the primary system.

VP Harris has the benefit of having been on the ticket, but her polling is not good. Known for a grating laugh and weird word-salad statements, it is uncertain if her voter support would top that of an ailing Mr. Biden.

Gov. Newsom looks like Hollywood’s ideal of a president; but, under his watch, California has become a woke-topia of high taxes, over regulation, and crime which many centrist voters don’t find appealing.

Gov. Whitmer seems to be popular within the party, but lacks name recognition outside her state or with political junkies.

For any candidate except Mr. Biden to be picked would require machinations at the convention in mid-August not seen in decades. That Chicago spectacle already has the potential for major problems, as protesters are expected in large numbers rallying against the conflict in Gaza.

The smoke-filled back rooms of the convention used to be where presidential candidates were selected. Binding presidential primaries didn’t appear until after the horrible 1968 Democratic convention in, wait for it, Chicago. It’s uncertain Democratic voters are on board with reverting back.

Modern voters are used to having a presumptive candidate chosen well before the primary season ends. A nominee picked just weeks before the general could lead to overwhelming enthusiasm or general disapproval.

Vitally important in the presidential race this year will be voter enthusiasm. The winner will owe their success or lack thereof to voter turnout.

If Mr. Biden stays in it, supporters who have doubts about his ability to lead might just stay home. Expressing a preference for a candidate is no substitute for the willingness to make the effort to vote.
Turnout was key in 2020 when Mr. Trump got 11 million more votes than in 2016. But, Mr. Biden snared about 15 million more votes than Hillary Clinton did four years earlier.
While diehards remain energetic about Mr. Biden, they may not be near enough to get him over the top.

If Mr. Biden stays in, this could easily end up as a choice about which candidate, according to the campaigns, is the most damaged. Is it the “convicted felon” or the “senile old man”? - Frank Mercer

Guest Editorial - It's a roundup

(Published May 22, 2024)

There’s been too much going on to stay focused on one topic, so let’s divide our attention.

In the never-ending world of Trump lawfare, testimony by adult film actress Stormy Daniels had the left wing all a flutter about her revelations.

She was on the stand in the case against former president Donald Trump which we are assured is really about election interference, not sex, although you couldn’t prove it by this testimony. Actually, the most scandalous thing about this case is still the acrobatics required to make possible misdemeanors, all beyond their statutes of limitations, into felonies.

As far as witnesses go, Daniels wasn’t beyond question, given her professional background and ongoing efforts to make money off the allegations. Her testimony brought out both her absolute hatred for Mr. Trump and that her recollection of events continues to change. She was feisty disastrous and combative, which was cheered by the left-wing media, but how it played with the jury is still unknown.

The judge let her go into racy details which many argue should not have been allowed because it had no bearing on the charges. Team Trump asked for a mistrial which Judge Juan Merchan denied. Still, even he got a little squeamish about all the graphic details. “I agree that there are probably some things that would have been better unsaid.” Gee, if only there were someone at the trial in charge of preventing just that sort of thing.

As problematic as Daniels may be as a witness, the upcoming star has her beat by a mile.

Former Trump “fixer” Michael Cohen’s testimony could be a courtroom battle for the ages. Not only has he already been convicted of perjury, but in recent years has made bank by running down the former president in multiple media arenas.

Elsewhere in lawfare, upsetting all those pinning their election hopes on Trump convictions, the classified documents case has been postponed indefinitely by that judge.

That came on the heels of a Friday afternoon (the preferred time to dump info to the media so it gets the least possible attention) revelation that investigators misplaced some of the documents that Mr. Trump is charged with mishandling. Now that’s irony.

When the FBI made their unprecedented raid at Mar-a-Lago, to seize secret papers which the former president was said to illegally possess, agents took those documents out of boxes and left place holders. Except it seems sometimes they didn’t use place holders, or the place holders didn’t define what was taken out, so it was unclear what should be put back.

To make a long story short, they messed up the chain of evidence and then told the court that everything was exactly as found. However you look at it, that doesn’t scream competence.

This has long been seen as potentially the strongest case against Mr. Trump, in spite of the fact that the charges were contrary to normal practices. It appears, at best, that the Justice Department has egg on its face.

On the international scene, last week President Joe Biden promised on Holocaust Remembrance Day that we would never forget. Then, once the cameras were turned off, he announced military aid to Israel would be cut off over plans to finish their battle against Hamas by going into Rafah.

Mr. Biden, of course, is widely recognized as a genius for his strong record on international relations.

Oops, I mean NOT. Not recognized. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates once wrote, “I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

You don’t have to go back 40 years to see that. As President Obama’s vice president, he advised against the raid which killed Osama bin Laden. (Although he later claimed he did just the opposite.)
Perhaps his most disasterous act as president, and the worst U.S. debacle in decades, was his withdrawal from Afghanistan. He predicted it would result in the Afghan government standing strong, and good future relations with the Taliban.

Mr. Biden’s crystal ball was pretty foggy, because, within hours everything fell apart, and we ended up abandoning both allies and U.S. citizens.

Now he wants the Israeli government to stop their efforts to finish Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization which has governed Gaza and slaughtered Israelis. As one commentator put it, Hamas doesn’t seek a two-state solution; they want a final one.

Mr. Biden seems to be most concerned about voters on the far left, many now seen wearing keffiyehs and chanting anti-Israel slogans.

It is likely that members of his staff are pressuring Mr. Biden to take this position. His administration is filled with holdovers from the Obama administration, who thought catering to Iran was a great idea. That included sending them pallets of cash which they used to fund proxies, including Hamas, to attack Israel.

This weapons embargo makes us question why Mr. Biden hasn’t brought more pressure on Hamas to surrender. Or, for that matter, why he hasn’t put the screws to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to find a negotiated end to the Russian invasion. Both would make just as much sense.

Back home again, has any politician ever shot themselves in the foot more dramatically than South Dakota governor Kristi Noem did with a story about killing a dog in her new book?
Rural life has a less cuddly relationship with livestock and animals than urban settings. That’s reality.

But a politician with desires to perhaps be the next V.P. should have known a tale about shooting a dog in a gravel pit wasn’t going to go over well, no matter what the reason.

Did she forget what a big deal was made out of Mitt Romney putting his dog’s carrier on top of the station wagon? No one even claimed his pup didn’t love the ride, and they still came unglued.- Frank Mercer

Guest Editorial - Loss of support

(Published April 17, 2024)

Recently the Israeli Defense Force accidentally targeted an aid convoy from World Central Kitchen, killing seven workers, which triggered major denunciations here and abroad.
That incident was horrible and tragic and quickly became fodder for the notion that Israel is conducting wholesale slaughter in the region.

Unlike their Hamas foes, the Israelis quickly accepted responsibility and promised a complete investigation. By week’s end, they had already fired two senior officers for the attack.
War is always ugly, no matter how righteous the cause. Even the most careful of combatants make mistakes. For example, at the end of the disastrous, pullout from Afghanistan the U.S. hit a group of ISIS fighters. It turned out the drone strike killed ten members of a family, including seven children.

The Gaza conflict has taken a prominent place in American political dialogue. Some say it could even be a deciding factor in the skepticism.presidential election.
Americans tend to like an underdog, and Israel has certainly been that since its founding in 1948.

But for many Americans, especially those of a leftist bent, that underdog is now the Palestinians. That was clear when large protests demanding a ceasefire started all across the U.S. within days of Israel launching its forces to oust Hamas from Gaza.

Usually forgotten in the protests and the news coverage is what started this battle in the first place. Back on Oct. 7 Hamas crossed the border and killed around 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, and took about 240 others hostage. The exact numbers are still unknown.

The attack was horrifying, and atrocities were committed, including rape and the barbaric murder of children. These claims were substantiated by Israel and by the attackers who were quickly posting on social media.

Still, in the U.S., there are those who believe that the outrages were fake, and also that Hamas’ actions were justified due to years of oppression.

Since day one, the Biden administration has tried to do a balancing act between supporting our key ally in the Middle East and satisfying the demands of the ever growing far-left in the Democratic Party.
Compounding their problem is the administration’s resurrected Obama- era effort to open up relations with Iran, which is the biggest supporter of Hamas.

The balancing may have worsened the situation by prolonging the conflict. Some say, had President Biden announced from the beginning that the U.S. was 100 percent behind Israel, they could have completed operations in Gaza much more quickly.

Instead, Mr. Biden tempered support, with strong warnings about using caution. That was the same as giving aid to Hamas, since their only hope for a win was always dependent on the world’s condemnation of their foe.

The longer this goes on, the worse it gets for Israel. Those supporting the Palestinians have taken to calling what is happening there a “genocide”.

To less biased observers, it would appear the IDF is taking extraordinary measures to protect civilians, including attempting to evacuate them before attacking.

For their part, it is well known that Hamas has positioned their forces and weapons in locations such as schools and hospitals where civilian casualties are guaranteed. The idea is to spark international outrage.

The IDF has accomplished a lot so far. They’ve wiped out 18 of Hamas’ 24 battalions and much of the top leadership. They’ve destroyed miles of tunnels and most of the rockets used to target Israeli civilians.

But it is Hamas which is winning the propaganda war with the aid of an ever credulous media. You can see it in U.S. opinion polls. Back in November, 50 percent of Americans approved of Israeli military actions in Gaza. By March, that number had plummeted to 36 percent.

Information by Hamas has been treated as gospel in the U.S. media, while every Israeli pronouncement is examined with skepticism.

For example, protesters cite the Hamas count of 30,000 dead, 70 percent of them women and children. That number has done a lot to drive down American opinion of the Israeli operation.

Yet the precision of the counts should have been enough to trigger doubts. Abraham Wyner, professor of statistics and data science at the Wharton School, reported in Tablet that increases in death counts were so consistent that “...it is highly suggestive that a process unconnected or loosely connected to reality was used to report the numbers.”
Placed on a graph, the increase is a perfect incline with no spikes or dips to correlate to the intensity of battle.

In other words, the Hamas numbers are likely being fabricated for their effect on Western support.

Mr. Biden is caught between two contrary demands in an election year where he is caught in a close race.

One is a large faction of his own party which is demanding a ceasefire and withdrawal of all support for Israel. This faction is not only the far left, but is growing in the Democratic rank and file.
Reports say that some of Mr. Biden’s big-dollar financial backers are withdrawing support over the issue. At the same time, he risks driving away Jewish supporters, so he’s waking a razor’s edge.
The other issue is the requirement to do what is best for America’s interests, which is not always easy, or pretty.

That’s because our allies have their own self-interests. Notice how Egypt has not opened their borders wide to Palestinian refugees in the face of “genocide”. Yet we still back them. We also support Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, and a host of other countries which are ruled in ways we would find intolerable.

As much as Mr. Biden wants to bow to his base, it’s hard to imagine him throwing overboard the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. - Frank Mercer