Old Mexico gets smart; New Mexico stays stupid

Old Mexico gets smart; New Mexico stays stupid by Peter Burrows 4/24/21 elburropete@gmail.com

A month after taking office Dec. 1, 2019, the President of Mexico, Manuel Lopez Obrador, did something very smart:  he turned Mexico’s electricity future away from renewables and back to oil and coal.  He did this by cancelling a “clean energy” auction that would have had Mexico paying millions of dollars for electricity generated by solar panels and wind turbines.  

He then cancelled two transmission-line projects that would have transported the renewable energy around the nation. He also called for more investment in coal and had the temerity to note that high subsidies for renewables had led to “very high costs.” His new director of Mexico’s state-owned electric utility, the Federal Electricity Commission (Comision Federal de Electricidad or CFE), dismissed wind and solar as unreliable and expensive.  

The criticism was immediate and risible. Mexicans could now expect blackouts because of the reduction in intermittent electricity sources, which everywhere else in the world leads to MORE blackouts. In the same vein, Mexicans could count on higher prices because Mexico was, somehow, going to become the only place in the entire world where adding wind and solar to the generation mix would lower electricity bills. 

The most ridiculous criticism was that by abandoning wind and solar electricity, Mexico would be unable to meet its emission reduction commitments under the Paris climate agreement, the 2015 treaty signed by 196 nations who pledged to reduce their CO2 emissions.  Unfortunately (fortunately?), even if the developed nations were actually going to achieve their stated goals, which they are NOT going to do, it wouldn’t mean a thing.  

That’s because China, India and some poor nations in Africa are going full steam ahead building more coal-fired electricity plants, Paris be damned. China, the world’s largest CO2 emitter, twice that of the US, has said they will be carbon neutral by 2060, whatever that means. 2060? Gosh, maybe Biden’s Climate Czar, the pathetic John Kerry, can get them to advance that date to 2055, or even 2050. 

India, the number three CO2 emitter after China and the US, is starting to really ramp up its industrialization as they face the threat of a modernized, aggressive China on its northern border. To get an idea of the magnitude of additional CO2 that entails, India’s per capita CO2 emissions are about one-fourth that of the US and one-half of China’s. Per capita CO2 is a proxy for a nation’s prosperity, and when India’s per capita CO2 emissions equals that of China’s, it will be the CO2 equivalent of adding a brand-new America to the world.  

Of course, China won’t be standing still, and it’s conceivable that the two countries combined will be adding two or three brand new Americas to the CO2 world over the next decade, making a mockery of all the environmental posturing going on about how the U.S. must “save the world” by spending trillions on offshore wind turbines, EV charging stations and other moronic liberal nonsense. (Pardon my redundancy.)  

Why, you may ask, aren’t India et al putting up solar panels and windmills instead of coal-fired generation plants, since solar and wind are cheaper than coal?  BECAUSE IN THE 24-7 REAL WORLD THEY AREN’T CHEAPER. You think not? Show me where adding renewables has lowered electricity bills. Certainly not here in New Mexico.  

And if you think somebody in India, China, Africa, or old Mexico for that matter, is going to forego cheap, 24-7 electricity just to prevent the streets of Manhattan from being under water someday, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. 

Obrador followed up the renewable cancellation with orders for five new gas-fired electric generating plants, and, taking a page from China and India, last July ordered Mexico’s state-owned power company to buy two million tons of coal from Mexican coal producers, sending a clear message to Mexico’s coal industry. I don’t know if this will replace coal imports from the US, or if it represents new coal-fired capacity. Probably the former, as “energy sovereignty” is Obrador’s goal.  

This goal was validated last February when a winter storm knocked out power in Texas, which led the governor of Texas to shut off natural gas exports to Mexico, leaving 4 million Mexicans without electricity. Obrador said the lesson was clear: “We (Mexico) must produce.” I bet he also learned that trying to rely on intermittent sources of electricity for base-load needs is flirting with disaster.  

Proof of this, at least in my opinion, came last month when he proposed legislation that would require Mexico’s electricity grid to first take power from the state-run coal and oil-powered plants, the traditional sources of base-load power, BEFORE adding any solar or wind produced power. Obrador “gets” it.   

So, in spite of being what journalists have called “left-leaning,” Obrador is becoming one of my favorite politicians. He’s smart enough to see through the environmental BS and he’s acting in the best interests of Mexico. If current trends continue, old Mexico will someday enjoy the competitive advantage of cheap, reliable electricity, unlike New Mexico, where our “left leaning” politicians remain stuck on stupid. 

Roe v. Wade: Republican millstone

Roe v. Wade: Republican millstone by Peter Burrows elburropete@gmail.com 4/2/21 

The Democratic Party is finding it impossible to reconcile the conflicting interests of its various constituents.  Jews and Asians, for example, are two ethnic groups who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, yet they are being increasingly victimized on the streets by blacks who go unpunished and by school standards being lowered to accommodate a few blacks who can’t be educated.  

Thus, the imaginary victimhood of blacks creates real victimhood for Jews and Asians, but there are only 7 million Jews and maybe 20 million Asians in America, vs. 40 million blacks.  

Simple demographics, however, doesn’t explain why the Democrats, from Biden on down, are so eager to accommodate transgenders, the latest group to claim victimhood. They probably amount to only 1-2% of the population, if that. Outraged feminists and soccer moms should be raising Hell about the absurdities of transgenderism, but the highest elected woman in America, Vice President Harris, is apparently OK with transmen competing in women’s sports.  

I guess that in today’s woke world, “equity” trumps everything, and “equity” is in the eye of the progressive beholder.  

This should be rich pickings for the Republican Party, but for many people in America, “Republican” is a pejorative. Years of being demonized, with very little push-back I might add, have convinced many voters that Republicans are bad, evil people. Republicans want to keep women “bare foot and pregnant,” they “want to put y’all back in chains,” they’re a bunch of red-neck racists who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.” Why – GASP! — David Duke says he’s a Republican. What decent person would ever want to be a Republican?   

Unfortunately, there is a tiny grain of truth in that sea of lies, hypocrisy and hate. The Republicans have only two hot buttons, abortion and gun control, and abortion is the really hot, always on button. Not all Republicans think Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but that’s the general impression. Democrats very effectively use a “war on women” theme tied to women’s reproductive rights against Republicans. 

That’s why a great many liberals, especially Jews and suburban women, aka soccer moms, will not vote for a Republican. They might if that Republican openly supported Roe v. Wade, but I don’t know of any Republican who has or would get nominated if they did.  

Even promoting birth control can get a Republican in hot water if that is seen as supporting abortion in any way. Republican Senator Rand Paul found that out a few years ago when he supported the morning after pill, Plan B. That cost him any chance at the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, not that he had much to begin with 

The argument is that the Plan B pill is an abortifacient, causing the fertilized ovum, the gamete, to dislodge from the uterus wall, thus preventing pregnancy, ergo an abortion.  I think this “life at conception” argument dooms many Republicans to defeat at the polls. Star Parker, a black lady who is very anti-abortion, ran for Congress in 2010 and I sent her a campaign contribution because I agree with her on every other issue under the sun. However, if her election had meant overturning Roe v. Wade, I don’t know if I would have supported her. 

I personally would support any private foundation that provided generic Plan B pills free of charge to every high school in America, to be dispensed with no questions asked. As I see it, the reality is not a choice between abortions or no abortions. The demand for abortions will always exist and the question is if they will be legal or illegal. I prefer the safety of legal abortions, and generic Plan B has the added attraction of CHEAP legal abortions. 

Ironically, the Republicans could turn the “war on women” issue against the Democrats if they would continue to make affordable contraception an issue, as they did in 2016, but not very effectively. In most of the world, birth control pills are available without a prescription, but not in America.  Here, a woman has to go to a doctor, frequently go through a battery of unnecessary tests, take her prescription to a pharmacist and pay thru the nose OR – and this is important — have her insurance pick up the bill. 

This is why Democrats opposed Trump’s position on over-the-counter birth control: “It should not be a prescription.”  I didn’t know this was Trump’s position until I recently read an article about OTC contraception in Reason Magazine. Why did the Democrats oppose this? In a word: Obamacare.  

The Affordable Care Act required insurance companies to cover FDA approved contraceptives, and any attempt to approve OTC pills was portrayed as an attempt to undermine the ACA. This deprived birth control to women without insurance or the funds to get a prescription.  It also benefited insurance companies, pharmacies, doctors and abortion providers. 

Republicans need to take advantage of that inequity if they are ever going to have a chance with many women voters.  An NBC poll a couple of years ago reveals the stark political realities:  

“A comprehensive 2019 study of attitudes toward abortion by the Pew Research Center found that 70 percent of U.S. adults oppose completely overturning Roe v. Wade, while 28 percent support overturning it. Support for preserving Roe was lopsided among key groups of women who are already skeptical of Trump, according to internal Pew Research Center survey data provided to NBC News. Female college graduates oppose overturning Roe v. Wade by 79 percent to 20 percentPew found. Women who identify as politically independent oppose overturning Roe by 74 percent to 22 percent. And suburban women oppose overturning it by 74 percent to 22 percent.” 

Replace the above “skeptical of Trump” with the more accurate, “skeptical of Republicans,” and there is the problem.  While Democrats are focused on overthrowing the nation, Republicans are focused on overthrowing Roe v. Wade. The Democrats are succeeding. 



Thoughts on “White math” and other absurdities

Thoughts on “White math” and other absurdities by Peter Burrows – elburropete@gmail.com 3/30/21 

I think it’s ironic that so many liberal white people, consumed by some sort of narcissistic guilt, are openly flouting their racism by trying to show they aren’t racists. Nothing illustrates this hypocrisy better than the lowering of academic standards now being openly pushed at ALL levels of education, not just college, where quotas and affirmative action have been hurting black kids for years, largely at the expense of Asian kids. 

I wrote about this spread of “dumbing down” in my last article, “White Math and Black Math.” (Grant County Beat, 3/27/21.) Let me repeat a sentence from a supplemental instruction course that the Oregon Department of Education recommends for Oregon’s math teachers: 

“White supremacy culture shows up in math classrooms when the focus is on getting the “right” answer.” 

This is a “fact” that most of us, including the kids in the classroom, have been unaware of until now. What the white liberals apparently don’t realize, is that by overtly deemphasizing getting the right answer, for reasons which will be very, very apparent to the kids, white supremacy is tacitly affirmed and black inferiority tacitly acknowledged.  

Question: Don’t they realize how humiliating this is to the minority kids, especially the black kids? 

 Another question: Why aren’t America’s blacks raising Hell about this blatant racism? 

I guess I’m just too damned old to “get” it. I graduated from high school way back in 1957, in a class of 155 that included 10 black kids. Some of those black kids went on to forge distinguished careers, and all of those black kids would have been deeply offended at the assumption they were dumber than their white classmates. A couple of them would have kicked your lily-white racist ass for implying that 

In fact, the black kids were NOT dumber and a few were conspicuously more intelligent than most, if not all, of the white kids, me included. Of course, this was 1957, when the majority of black kids came from two-parent families, where at least one of the parents held a fulltime job, and if there was any black family dependent on welfare, I didn’t know about it. It certainly wasn’t a common condition.  

How times have changed.  Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK in 1963, and then LBJ introduced the Great Society/War-on-Poverty programs, which effectively bought the black vote for his party. As LBJ infamously said, “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for 200 years.”       

Well, it’s been almost 60 years, and, so far, the old SOB has been right.  The typical black voter today has bought into the white supremacy, intrinsic racism, victimhood BS, and simply can’t see how blacks are being used and denigrated. Too busy picking cotton on Massa LBJ’s Plantation, I guess, or maybe that should be “Uncle Sam’s Plantation,” the title of Star Parker’s book. (You can find it on Amazon: $10.99 paperback, 2010 revised edition; 4.7 out of 5 stars, 285 reviews.) 

The tide may be turning, although very slowly. The above-mentioned Star Parker, a classy black lady who ran for Congress in 2010 against a black Democrat incumbent, received only 21% of the vote. Kimberly Klacik, another classy black lady who ran for Congress in 2020 against a black incumbent, won 25% of the vote.  

Based on that objective data, my subjective opinion is that 75% of today’s black voters aren’t worth a damn, down from 79% in 2010. Add to that, 63% of the Asian voters aren’t worth a damn either (they voted for Biden), nor are about 85% of the Jewish voters (ditto).  They join 50% of the white voters who also aren’t worth a damn, and you can see that I am more than just a racist anti-Semite: I’m a deplorable. 

It may be too late to save America. The Democrats have ridden their coalition of racial minorities, imaginary “victims,” social justice warriors and well-meaning whites to one-party rule. They are now busy consolidating their power with voting law changes and a massive raid on the treasury to reward their constituents. This will be followed by huge tax increases, wealth confiscation, and various attacks on the Bill of Rights, such as hate-speech codes, gun seizures, etc. 

There is a slim chance that the Democrat’s coalition will break apart in time to prevent all that. Quite a few Jews and Asians are realizing that they’re second-class Democrats in a party that is essentially ruled by radicals, especially black radicals. Plus, there is a small but growing cadre of black voters who are fed-up with the Democrat Party, and there will certainly be some voters who are no longer lobotomized by Trump Derangement Syndrome.  

Unfortunately, the Republican Party is not an attractive alternative for many of these voters, and I’ll explore why in my next article.     

White Math and Black Math

White Math and Black Math by Peter Burrows 3/27/21 elburropete@gmail.com 

— Action finally being taken to accommodate intellectual inferiority of Black Americans —  

Nothing says “white supremacist” more than getting the correct answer to a math problem, and some compassionate educators in Oregon are finally doing something to change that disgusting state of affairs.  The Oregon Department of Education, in their February newsletter, celebrated Black History Month by calling attention to efforts to address systemic racism in all the STEM disciplines (Science – Technology – Engineering – Mathematics) but especially mathematics:  

“Are you or your Professional Learning Team looking for a deeper dive into equity work? Our friends at the Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction are offering a virtual micro-course beginning February 25, 2021, titled ‘Pathway to Math Equity Micro-Course 2.0: Valuing and elevating student discourse in the math classroom.’ — In this online course, educators will learn key tools for engagement, develop strategies to improve equitable outcomes for Black, Latinx, and multilingual students —. For information about “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction,” visit www.equitablemath.org” 

If you visit that site, you will find five steps to take, called “Strides.”  On page 66 of the first Stride, “Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction,” you will find a long overdue recognition of what’s been so obvious for so long. Summarized for brevity: 

“White supremacy culture shows up in math classrooms when the focus is on getting the “right” answer. The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so. Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict.”   

This is all part of the ongoing progressive campaign to define reality as something subjective: if you are a black kid, from now on your math answer is never wrong, which means you never have to feel inferior. In the old objective world, you black kids who couldn’t do 2 + 2 = 4 were in fact inferior, but no more!   

Perpetuating objectivity is something that must be eliminated if we are to protect the feelings of students who have a difficult time coming up with the “right” answer, which is such a white privilege thing. If there is no “right” answer, then there is no “wrong” answer to feel bad about! “Right” and “wrong” are so racist, so white supremacist. 


Multiracial whiteness exacerbates the problem:  it’s the Jewish kids and Asian kids who really flout their white supremacy in math (and lots of other schoolwork.) Oh, and if you think Asians are people of color, you are so unwoke! The upward mobility and extraordinary economic success of Asian Americans makes them WHITE BY ADJACENCY!  

That self-evident fact was very apparent in a statement last month from the Chinese Citizens Alliance of Greater New York (CACAGNY,) a horridly racist group who think school admissions should be based on academic merit, not skin color. Ha! Easy for them to say. 

Another move to protect the feelings of minority students was recently taken when the Boston Public Schools suspended a program for high–performing 4th, 5th, and 6th graders. Superintendent Brenda Cassellius recommended a one-year hiatus for the program, Advanced Work Classes, saying the district would not proceed with the program for new students next year. “There’s been a lot of inequities that have been brought to the light in the pandemic that we have to address,” Cassellius said.      

Boston schools are nearly 80 percent black and Hispanic while the program has 70 percent white and Asian enrollment.  Whether the program will be restarted under new admission standards is not known at this time. If so, one can only hope the new standards will not incorporate such silly concepts as getting the “right” answer.  Such standards have for too long skewed the SAT scores and college admissions to favor multiracial white supremacy. 

New Mexico, not to be outdone when it comes to compassionate teaching for minorities, recently passed the Black Education Act, which “creates critical mechanisms to address the significant educational disparities that exist for Black students in New Mexico,” said House Majority Floor Leader Sheryl Williams Stapleton (D – Albuquerque.)  

No cost estimates for this new program were available, but anybody who would worry about something so irrelevant is obviously a racist. In fact, New Mexico could set an example for the rest of the nation if we instituted separate schools for black kids, staffed and equipped with the best that money can buy!! Separate but unequal!! 

You saw it here first, folks.    

(Note to readers: I hope reading this upset you as much as writing it did me. Also, if you are a black American who is a naturalized citizen, e.g., you immigrated from Nigeria, your IQ is probably higher than average and WAY above that of the typical white liberal.)  
















Global warming, where art thou?

Global warming, where art thou? By Peter Burrows 3/24/21 – elburropete@gmail.com 

It’s snowing here in Silver City, NM, which happens occasionally, but rarely in the last week of March.  In the 16 years I’ve lived here, this is the coldest March I can recall.  What’s-her-name tells me my memory isn’t what it used to be, so maybe I’m mistaken, but I don’t think so. 

At the Geezer Lunch Club meeting a couple weeks ago, the quips were on the order of, “Boy, we could sure use a little of that global warming about now,” and, “Where’s Al Gore when you need him?” Devastatingly witty stuff like that.  

Typically, the media portrays an unusual weather event as due to Global Warming (always capitalize a religion) unless it doesn’t fit the lib narrative, and then it becomes just “weather.” I can hear you lemming-libs about now: “This snow storm is just weather! Just weather, you evil-dirty-bastard-racist climate-denier!!” (You forgot, “Islamophobic-maskless germ spreader.”)   

A more sophisticated argument is that global warming has affected the polar vortex, changing the jet stream which is pushing cold weather farther south.  This would have more credibility had it been predicted, but, as far as I know, this is an ad hoc argument. Also, I would think that another effect of that would be drastically reduced artic ice, something that would surely have been heralded to the skies had it occurred.  

I tried to look up the record for the March low temperature in New Mexico, but was unsuccessful. It must be out there somewhere, but I can’t find it. I did find this about February, from the February 15, 2021, Albuquerque Journal: “Several places set record cold temperatures on Monday. Rio Rancho hit a low of 7 degrees, breaking the previous Feb. 15 record of 22 degrees set in 2010.” 

You will note the previous record low was in 2010. I couldn’t find how New Mexico fared in the spring of 2015, when much of the rest of the nation recorded record lows: “Record-Breaking Cold: All-Time March Record Lows Set March 07, 2015 – All-time March record lows have been broken as one more shot of bitterly cold air plunged south in the wake of Winter Storm Thor. Some cities have seen their coldest temperatures in decades for so late in the season.” 

Thus, in the last 11 years, it appears there have been at least three very cold springs: 2010, 2015 and this year, 2021. This probably surprises you. It did me, but it reflects the fact that unusually cold weather doesn’t make the news; only unusually warm weather does.  

An exception would be this year’s winter storm disaster in Texas, but if Texans would have kept all their coal-fired generators online instead of putting up thousands of wind turbines, there would have been no blackouts, no disaster and no news about unseasonably cold temperatures. 

Climate alarmists and their political allies lament the public’s lack of concern about “climate change.” A Pew poll conducted last summer, found “climate change is second to last or tied for last in importance among the 12 policy issues the 9,114 voters surveyed were asked about.”   

One probable reason for that low ranking is uncooperative weather, such as we’re having now. Another has got to be the long list of dire predictions by climate alarmists that just haven’t come true. For example, back in 1988, a scientist from NASA, James Hansen, testified in front of a Congressional committee about the dangers of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. His performance earned him the title, “The Father of Global Warming.”  That was 33 years ago. 

The very next year, 1989, he predicted that by 2019 rising sea levels caused by global warming would put the streets of Manhattan under water.  He gave himself 30 years but still missed it. Father doesn’t know best, it would seem. Hansen’s fallibility has gone unnoticed by the MSM, but his reputation has not suffered an iota.  (To his credit, Hansen has joined Michael Shellenberg’s pro-nuclear movement.) 

Hansen isn’t alone. Many climate alarmists have made tons of predictions over the years, but nobody seems to notice that they never pan out.  This hasn’t dented the enthusiasm of Democrats for imposing all sorts of regulations to combat climate change, which is “the existential threat of our time,” and “the number one threat facing humanity.” (You have one guess as to who recently uttered those warnings. Hint: it wasn’t Donald Trump.) 

Such breathtaking stupidities fly in the face of numerous realities:  

  1. Even if CO2 is the threat the alarmists claim it is, it is very probable that humanity has time to work on the problem, perhaps a hundred years or so.  
  1. The economic progress being made by less developed nations, especially China and India, means that ANY CO2 reductions made by the U.S. are meaningless. For example, India has four times the population of the U.S. and emits only one-fourth the per capita CO2. To achieve our level of prosperity, India would multiply our CO2 emissions by 16. And, if you think somebody in India who’s never had electricity is going to give a damn if Manhattan is under water, you must be a Democrat. Last I looked, India was opening 80 new coal mines. (China, by the way, emits twice the CO2 we do and has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2060. 2060? F you very much.)   
  1. Third, solar panels and wind turbines are both counter-productive and a waste of money, money that should have been used to subsidize and promote nuclear power, which is the only realistic way to reduce worldwide CO levels. 

We can only hope that the adults start to take over the climate agenda, and there are a few adults in the Democrat Party. Here’s one who would get my vote, an MIT physicist who worked in the Obama administration. PLEASE read:                                                                


Other URLs used: 



Will there be a New Republic of North America?

Will there be a New Republic of North America? By Peter Burrows 2/28/21 elburropete@gmail.com 

The Democrats would probably win every future presidential election if they could eliminate the Electoral College. In two of the last four elections, the Republican won without a majority of the popular vote, and it almost happened again in the latest election. Presidents Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would be facts, not historical footnotes. 

Some Republicans have argued that eliminating the Electoral College would be “an urban power grab,” which is true, but it’s also true that most Americans live in urban areas, overwhelmingly so, and why shouldn’t their votes count as much as any other citizen’s? 

The problem with that is it would ensure one-party rule and the inevitable abuse of power that would entail. We’re seeing it already, as Biden signs executive orders by the dozens with no congressional oversight and none to be expected from the Democrat controlled Congress. As a consequence, people all over the nation are being stripped of their rights, from female athletes to owners of oil wells, and it’s just beginning.  

If you don’t like this, there’s not much you can do short of leaving the country, which is precisely what some people are thinking about doing, and on a grand scale. I touched on this in “Is The New Republic of Texas just the beginning?” (2/18/21.) I expect Florida will be the next state to consider secession, and there could be many more.  Yes, unilateral state secession is unconstitutional, but that will be a lame argument from people who are in the process of destroying the Constitution.  

The reality of America’s new demographics is startling.  Los Angeles county, that’s COUNTY, has a population of 10 million people, which is greater than the population of 38 different states.  That little bit of trivia won’t be so trivial if the Electoral College is eliminated.   

For example, the total populations of North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Utah, are less than that of LA County. Those states border one another and would form a fairly large country. Importantly, they all voted for Trump, and by at least 57 percent of the vote. Do you think the voters in those six states want to be ruled by the people in LA County? 

What if those states get together and decide to become The New Republic of North America? Furthermore, the new nation would probably be joined by many of the eastern counties of Oregon and Washington, most of the northern counties in Nevada, and some of the western counties in Minnesota. Ditto for a county or two from Denver-dominated Colorado, something already happening.  

(A group in Weld County, Colorado, is working to put a measure on the November 2021 ballot that would have the county “explore the annexation of Weld County with the state of Wyoming’s Legislature.” YES!) 

About now, some of you are looking at a map, nodding your heads and are noting that the new country would not only be pretty big but would have a long international border with Canada, giving it guaranteed access to world markets.  Some of you may also notice that Nebraska fits nicely on the southeast corner of the new country, and that Nebraska also voted for Trump, with 58.5 percent of the vote.  

So, why didn’t I include Nebraska?  

Mea culpa. If I did so, the population of the new country would be greater than that of LA County by a million or so. Not so dramatic a scenario then. But, yes, Nebraska would probably want to join, which would pull in most of the northwest counties in Iowa, and probably some in north Kansas. The possibilities, while not endless, are pretty damn long.   

Those seven states and the New Republic of Texas, which would very probably include Oklahoma, would almost certainly be joined by a Republic of Florida. That would be 10 states becoming three new nations, and it might not end there. After all, who wants to live in a nation ruled by dysfunctional cities, where people defecate on sidewalks, shoplifters are not arrested, white people are demonized and there are over a hundred different genders? Oh, and you’ll be jailed as a bigot if you don’t agree with that last bit of moronic progressive “thinking.” 

Of course, any secession movement will be called “racist,” and the new nations will, in fact, have much smaller minority populations. This might even trigger a serious effort to form a separate black nation, as Louis Farrakhan has long advocated. Still, the “racist” charge will be a tough sell when the first president of The New Republic of Texas is Allen West, whom I intend to campaign for after I move to Abilene. 

Should we have a Constitutional Convention?

Should we have a Constitutional Convention? By Peter Burrows 2/23/21 elburropete@gmail.com 

A majority of the popular vote in the presidential elections of 2000 and 2016 went to the candidate who lost the election in The Electoral College, and the same was almost true in the 2020 election, where less than a million votes would have reelected Trump, who would have had 5-6 million fewer popular votes than Biden.  

Since that would have been the third time in the last 20 years, something that hadn’t happened since 1888, 132 years ago, I think we can safely conclude that the popular vote not matching the electoral vote is going to become a more or less permanent feature of presidential elections.  

This is a result of both demographic and political trends. In 1960, over twice as many people lived in urban areas vs rural (126M vs. 54M.) By 2020 this has grown to almost five times as many (273M vs, 57M.) Politically, these urban areas have increasingly become strongholds of the Democrat Party. The last Republican mayor of LA, for example was 20 years ago, and of the largest 100 cities today, 64 have Democrat mayors. 

Since the popular vote was won by the Democrat in the above elections, in no small part because of the voting in those cities, it is no surprise that Democrats are leading the charge to do away with the Electoral College.  This started in earnest following the 2000 election with the formation of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, NPVIC, something I wrote about in my last article. (Is ‘The New Republic of Texas’ just the beginning? 2/18/21.) 

The NPVIC is an attempt to change how states cast their Electoral votes, not an attempt to change the Constitution.  That would require a Constitutional amendment, which needs three-quarters of the states (38) to approve, which would be difficult to do when it comes to the Electoral College.  

(Actually, the Constitution does not use the term “Electoral College.” The electors never meet and “college” is from the Latin collegium: a group of people in a common pursuit, and Electoral collegium became Electoral College. I suspect the Founding Fathers were much better acquainted with Latin than we are today.)  

The Constitution, however, provides another way to affect changes to itself. Article V requires that Congress “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments” upon “Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States.” That would be only 34 states and could be surprisingly easy since, apparently, the states don’t have to agree on WHY they want a Constitutional convention, and because a petition is in effect until rescinded.   

Over the years, 27 states have called for a convention to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, BBA, and A5C advocates, which is shorthand for Article V Convention, make a strong case that if seven more states, for whatever reason, also call for a convention, Congress must comply. By including six petitions filed more than 100 years ago, they argue that only one more state petition is needed.  

That’s a stretch. Three of those old petitions were to call a convention to pass an amendment banning a civil war, and one was for direct election of senators, something accomplished in 1913 by the Seventeenth Amendment, so it seems doubtful that Congress would accept those as germane. Still, five of those six states are solid blue, and it is no stretch at all to assume each would quickly update their petitions. (New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Oregon and Washington. Kentucy is the sixth.) 

This is not just hypothetical. The Georgia General assembly will soon vote on petitioning for a Balanced Budget Amendment and that would make 34 states if nothing changes.  The V5C advocates are licking their chops over this because they make a very strong case that no such Constitutional Convention can be legally limited to only one, two or any specific number of issues. It would be open season on everything. 

Critics of such a convention say this could lead to the elimination of the Second Amendment, altering the First in nefarious ways, e.g., to allow prosecution of “hate speech,” and the list goes on and on. Ironically, the complexities of a balanced budget amendment could easily derail that effort, but there’s nothing complex about eliminating the Electoral College, which is the number one target of the A5C crowd.  

Depending on how Article V is interpreted, I think such a Convention could be a good idea. It would certainly get a lot of media coverage and would be a crash course in the Constitution and its history, something American citizens are woefully undereducated about. It wasn’t always that way.  Alexis de Tocqueville in ‘Democracy in America,’ published in 1831, noted that it was “extremely rare” to encounter anyone not familiar with “the leading features “of the Constitution.  

Of course, things could go awry. Much would depend on the authority that a Constitutional Convention would have. My reading of Article V is that such a convention would have the authority only to PROPOSE amendments which would go into effect only after being “ratified by the Legislators of three fourths” of the states. Unfortunately, Article V then adds “or by Conventions in three fourths thereof.”  

Does that include the Constitutional Convention itself? I don’t think so because it says conventions, plural, IN the states, not one convention held outside the state. Pending clarification of that little detail, I would be OK with such a convention, even though it might eliminate the Electoral College, something I oppose.  

Realistically, the Electoral College is about to become irrelevant anyway. If the “For the People Act” passes, something I mentioned in “Is America starting to break apart? 2/8/21,” the Democrats will win both the popular vote and the Electoral College from now on.  Might as well make it official.  

Which finally brings me to “The New Republic of North America,” which was going to be the topic of this article until I got involved in the demographic changes that are putting the Electoral College in jeopardy, and which underlie the justification for that hypothetical new nation. Next week. Sigh.  

Is ‘The New Republic of Texas’ just the beginning?

Is ‘The New Republic of Texas’ just the beginning? By Peter Burrows 2/18/21 elburropete@gmil.com 

Next November, Texans will vote on whether the Texas Legislature should develop a plan for reestablishing Texas as an independent country, something I wrote about in “Is America starting to break apart?”  (2/8/21.) Texas could be just the beginning if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, hereafter the NPVIC, ever becomes law. Wikipedia has a long, very thorough explanation of NPVIC from which the following two paragraphs have been lifted:  

“The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of February 2021, it has been adopted by fifteen states and the District of Columbia. These states have 196 electoral votes, which is 36% of the Electoral College and 73% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force 

“—-The project has been supported by editorials in newspapers, including The New York Times,[11] the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times,[15] The Boston Globe,[16] and the Minneapolis Star Tribune,[17] arguing that the existing system discourages voter turnout and leaves emphasis on only a few states and a few issues, while a popular election would equalize voting power. Others have argued against it, including the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.[18] Pete du Pont, a former Governor of Delaware, in an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, called the project an “urban power grab” that would shift politics entirely to urban issues in high population states and allow lower caliber candidates to run.[19] A collection of readings pro and con has been assembled by the League of Women Voters.[20] “ 

Whether the last two words in the first paragraph, “legal force,” are a fact or a fantasy is yet to be determined. As it is now, the NPVIC is a blatant attempt to bypass the Electoral College, which in two recent presidential elections has elected a president who didn’t receive a majority of the popular vote: Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016. It was the 2000 election that started the NPVIC movement, and in 2007 Maryland became the first state to join the NPVIC. 

The 2000 election was the first time in 112 years that the electoral vote differed from the popular vote, which was followed only 16 years later by another such outcome, and then four years later when it nearly happened again in 2020. I don’t think this is just a chance thing; it’s indicative of the new reality of a hopelessly divided America.  (I include the recent 2020 election because while Biden allegedly won by 7 million votes, he could have lost the Electoral College vote with less than a million-vote switch in swing states.)   

The 15 states now in the NPVIC include 8 East Coast states (I included Vermont); 4 West Coast (includes Hawaii); and 3 interior (IL, CO, NM.) As you might expect, all are considered “Blue” states, I.e., regularly vote Democrat. A Constitutional amendment requires approval of 75 percent of the states, which would be 38 states today, a formidable task. By contrast, the NPVIC needs only 18 to 25 states to reach its goal of 270 Electoral College votes, and they’re well over halfway there. (It’s 18 if both TX and FL join; an unlikely scenario.)  

If and when that happens, the Compact is triggered and the states are supposed to cast their votes to the candidate who won the majority of the national vote, regardless of how their state voted, if that candidate would otherwise lose the election in the Electoral College.  When that happens, the legality of the Compact will end up before the Supreme Court, where it will almost certainly be found to be unconstitutional.    

ALMOST certainly. The Constitution does not require Electors to vote according to the popular vote in their state.  Enforcement has been left to the states, where it is very lax and electors, with surprising frequency, don’t always vote as they are supposed to.  

In the 2016 election, for example, three of Hillary Clinton’s electors voted for Colin Powell and one for XL Pipeline protester, Faith Spotted Eagle.  They were fined $1,000 each and last year the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, upheld the fines. As Justice Kagan wrote in her opinion, supported by Justice Thomas, “The Constitution’s text and the nation’s history both support allowing a state to enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee and the state voters’ choice for President.”  

If the NVPIC ever gets in front of the Supreme Court, the question would then be if a state also has the authority to direct the electors to vote in OPPOSITION to the state’s voters’ choice for president. I expect such a Supreme Court challenge long before the NPVIC hits its 270 goal. Republicans in one or more of those states will want to determine if they should bother to vote at all.  

Regardless, the Electoral College is probably doomed, one way or another. It’s always been the most contentious part of the Constitution, gathering over 700 attempts to change it over the years, and it has never had public support. Interestingly, the latest Pew poll has 55 percent of the voters in favor of abolishing it, which is down from 71 percent in 1981. I would guess that some people are starting to worry about an “urban power grab.”   

The Texas referendum will be closely watched, but it could be that it’s too late for Texas to secede. There are many new Texans from liberal states, and the Texans who live in urban areas may be just fine with an “urban power grab.” That wouldn’t be the case for The New Republic of North America. More about that hypothetical, but possible, new nation in the next article. 

Is America starting to break apart?

Is America starting to break apart? Peter Burrows –2/8/21 – elburropete@gmail.com 

Have you heard of “Texit?” It is shorthand for Texas + Exit and refers to the state of Texas seceding from the United States and becoming a separate nation, something that hasn’t happened since the Civil War. Texans will vote in a referendum next November on whether to authorize the Texas legislature to determine the feasibility of such a move. 

It’s going to be interesting following the campaign leading up to the vote, as well as seeing how the vote breaks down between urban and rural areas. In my opinion, Texit is a reaction to an increasingly dysfunctional Federal Government, which, in turn, increasingly reflects the dysfunctional, and corrupt, governments of our major cities, all run by the Democrat Party. 

The 2020 election was the eye-opener. Massive election fraud in a few of those major cities very probably swung the election to Biden, and for proof, look no further than to the Democrats themselves. Now that they control everything in Washington, D.C., they are proposing national election laws which will virtually legalize the voter fraud they used so successfully in 2020.  

The Democrat controlled House of Representatives will be voting on something called the “For the People Act,” which will ensure only Democrat “People” will henceforth have a majority in the House. This will complement their pending, permanent, control of the Senate following the addition of four new Democrat senators from the new states of Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.  

 The demagoguery justifying the “People Act” is an example of “Big Lie” politics writ large. Here’s what Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, without a shred of prof, in support of the bill:  

“House Democrats are doubling down on our longstanding commitment to advance transformational anti-corruption and clean election reforms by again passing H.R. 1, the For the People Act. Our democracy is in a state of deep disrepair. During the 2020 election, Americans had to overcome rampant voter suppression, gerrymandering and a torrent of special interest dark money just to exercise their right to vote.”  

The bill would require same-day voter registration, online registration, at least 15 days of early voting, no requirement for witness signatures or signature matching on mail-in ballots, allow felons to vote, forgives ineligible voters who are “mistakenly” registered, and essentially removes any requirement to prove citizenship. Gosh, what could go wrong? It would also mandate that 16-and 17-year-olds be registered. Pelosi has said we should allow 16-year-olds to vote, so I guess she is laying the groundwork for that.   

I read that the bill (791 pages!) would violate the states’ constitutional right to set election procedures, but I’m not so sure about that. Article 1, Section 4, says “The Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations —.”    

The extent that Congress can “alter” is probably in the interpretation of “Manner of holding elections,” although the states’ determination of “Times” certainly would be usurped by a national 15-day early voting law. It will probably end up in the Supreme Court, and if found unconstitutional could very well trigger the court-packing implied by Biden’s commission on Supreme Court reform. 

Regardless, Democrats at the national level are well on their way to achieving one-party rule even without their proposed bill because they already are very good at stealing elections. The new bill only makes it easier to do so everywhere, not just the big cities in swing states. 

Not everybody thinks that’s a good idea, hence, Texit.  Texas, with its size, entrepreneurial tradition, long coastline and booming energy industry, would probably “thrive as an independent nation,” as the referendum’s sponsor claims. Also, people forget that Texas, unlike any other lower 48 state, had been an independent nation, The Republic of Texas, for nine years before it became a state in 1845.  Other states don’t have such a rich heritage or such bountiful natural assets.   

Critics claim such a move would be unconstitutional, which is probably correct. Article IV, Section 3, says that “no new state shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned AS WELL AS OF THE CONGRESS.” (My emphasis.) 

Some may say that “new state” could also mean “new nation,” but I don’t think that would get too far. In either case, it seems clear that the Constitution prohibits any part of the country from UNILATERALLY changing its political affiliation. 

Still, if push comes to shove, will Congress declare war to prevent an independent Texas? What moral principle would justify such a war?  It is quite possible the nation would prefer an independent Texas to a war-torn, forever alienated Texas. 

Ironically, Texas could claim it is seceding to preserve the Constitution, at least in Texas, and they would have a point. The Constitution is rapidly becoming a dead letter as the Democrats want not just to usurp the states’ Constitutionally delegated election mechanics, but also to vitiate the First Amendment with hate speech laws, chip away at the Second Amendment with national gun-registration, and the list goes on and on.  

The final nail in the Constitution’s coffin would come if an intimidated Supreme Court declares the National Popular Vote movement to be Constitutional.  I hope that never happens, but we’ll look at what effect the NPV could have on the secession movement in my next article.     

Laugh or cry?

Laugh or cry? by Peter Burrows 1/25/21 – elburropete@gmail.com – silvercityuburro.com     

One of Biden’s first acts as president, if not the first, was to implement a transgender speech code at the White House. In case you haven’t heard, the White House contact form now asks for the “preferred pronoun” by which you wish to be addressed: she/her, he/him, or they/them. Those are in addition to the conventional Mr., Mrs., and Ms.  Additional options are: Mx., other (please specify), and none.  

(I had to Google “Mx.” for a definition. Summarized from Wikipedia: “Mx (usually pronounced miks) is an English language neologistic honorific that does not indicate gender. It was developed as an alternative to common gendered honorifics, such as Mr. and Ms, in the late 1970s.” Late 70s? Unwoke me is just learning about it. Sigh.) 

The inclusion of “other (please specify)” may need a little explanation for all you unwokes out there who may be unaware of the recent proliferation of pronouns needed in our Brave New Progressive World.  Why, you say, are more pronouns needed?  Because, silly, there are now more than two genders.  

Male or female used to be one of the easiest things in the world to determine, but not anymore.  I found a site on Google, hopefully satirical, that identified 112 different genders. However, there’s nothing satirical about a $250,000 fine, is there?  

“In New York City, it is now illegal to discriminate anyone whose gender is male, female, ‘or something else entirely.’ Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office last week released a list of 31 genders approved by the New York City Commission on Human Rights — . The list is a guide for businesses, which can now be fined as much as $250,000 if establishments refuse to address someone by their preferred pronoun.” 

That’s from a June 1, 2016 news article. “Only” 31 genders back then, so perhaps 112 today is a serious number. (Facebook was up to 58 by 2018.) And if you think nothing so ridiculous can be serious, you haven’t been paying attention, mis amigos.  Newly re-elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, proving that advanced senility is all the rage in D.C. these days, has proposed that only “gender-inclusive language” be allowed on the House floor. Members are to: 

— eliminate gendered terms such as “‘father, mother, son, daughter,” and more. — the rules package would “honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender neutral.”  — Terms to be disallowed include “father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin (Huh??), nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half-brother, half-sister, grandson, [and] granddaughter,” to be replaced with “parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin (Huh?? again.), sibling’s child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, stepchild, stepsibling, half-sibling, [and] grandchild.” — “  (Summarized from The Epoch Times 1/21/21, ‘Huh?s’ added.) 

If Pelosi gets her way, and she will, this will become the law in both the House and eventually the entire country, to be enforced, and not just in New York City, with jail time and fines. This is already true In Norway, where hate speech against transgenders, if said in public, can get a transphobe a fine and up to three years in jail. The law was recently stiffened to include a year in jail for something said in private. Turn off Alexa, you transphobic SOBS!  

In studying this issue, though, I’m afraid enforcement could be extremely difficult. The problem is how to “honor all gender identities by changing pronouns” when the pronouns to use are proliferating almost as fast as the genders they’re supposed to represent. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Plus (LGBTQ+) Resource Center at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee (thank you, Wisconsin taxpayers), explains the need for all these new pronouns, and adds a very helpful table.   

“A gender neutral or gender inclusive pronoun is a pronoun which does not associate a gender with the individual who is being discussed. Some languages, such as English, do not have a gender neutral or third gender pronoun available, and this has been criticized, since in many instances, writers, speakers, etc. use “he/his” when referring to a generic individual in the third person. Also, the dichotomy of “he and she” in English does not leave room for other gender identities, which is a source of frustration to the transgender and gender queer communities. People who are limited by languages which do not include gender neutral pronouns have attempted to create them, in the interest of greater equality.”  

zie zim zir zis zieself  
sie sie hir hirs hirself  
ey em eir eirs eirself  
ve ver vis vers verself  
tey ter tem ters terself  
em eir eirs emself  

Obviously, the above is too complex to be incorporated into any legal code written to protect our transgender brothers and sisters — pfffft! — siblings from hate speech.  Plus, using those terms is asking too much of a transphile who wishes to avoid offending zir/hir trans friends. 

Years ago, the nongender pronoun “it” was used as a flattering term for movie starlets to describe those ladies who really had “it,” the “it” being something us male pigs do not need defined. The first to enjoy this pronoun was silent star Clara Bow. (No, I’m not QUITE that old.)    

I suggest we revive that trusty old pronoun and use it to both simplify and ensure political correctness in our everyday speech.  For example, a transgender male, a female who identifies as a male, could be called and referred to as “he-it.”    

Most of us would find that relatively simple to use, e.g., “good morning, Mx. He-it,” or, “let’s ask for he-its opinion,” and so on. For transgender women, men who identify as women, the corresponding pronoun would be “she-it,” as in “good morning Mx. She-it.”  

Simplicity itself, don’t you agree? (Please, don’t thank me.  Just my humble attempt to promote peace and understanding.)