Jeb! calls for convention of states

In the weeks since the election, Jeb(!) Bush has been conspicuously absent. He ended his absence today with a surprising op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that, among other advice to the president-elect and the Republican Party, calls for a convention of states to amend the Constitution.

Bush, who acknowledges that Mr. Trump “tapped into the anger and deep distrust that voters feel toward Washington” and the belief that “our system is skewed in favor of the powerful and the connected,” points out that “This election was more about voting against something than voting for something. Americans voted against the ‘establishment,’ against the country’s changing culture, against a dysfunctional Washington, against the privileged, against Hillary Clinton—and, yes, against Donald Trump.”

Bush notes that, even though Republicans won a decisive electoral victory, neither Trump nor the party is popular. To assume that the election results are a mandate for everything that Trump campaigned on, even as he trails by more than 2 million popular votes, might lead to the same trap of federal overreach that ensnared Barack Obama.

Instead, Bush argues for a positive agenda that will appeal to the majority of Americans. “Americans, by wide majorities, agree that Washington is broken, so let’s send power back to the people and back to the states,” Bush writes. “Republicans should support convening a constitutional convention to pass term limits, a balanced-budget amendment and restraints on the Commerce Clause, which has given the federal government far more regulatory power than the Founders intended.”

What Bush is referring to here is typically referred to as an “Article V convention” or a “convention of states,” an alternative method of amending the Constitution that has never been used, but that has been much discussed in recent years. Article V of the Constitution provides that two-thirds of the states can call a constitutional convention and amendments can then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or conventions in three-fourths of the states. This would require 34 states to call for the convention and 38 states to ratify.

While the election of 2016 may give Republicans their best chance at a successful Article V convention, it is by no means a slam dunk. Ballotpedia shows that starting in 2017, Republicans will control all three branches of government in 25 states. While this is a historic high, it falls short of the number of states required to ratify an amendment or even call for a convention. Conversely, only five states are completely controlled by Democrats. This falls short of the 13 states needed to block an amendment.

These numbers give the Republicans have an advantage, but the 20 states with bipartisan government control will be decisive. A constitutional convention would be dominated by Republicans, but there would be no blank check. Republicans would be forced to compromise to amend the Constitution.

Perhaps realizing the difficulty of amending the Constitution, Bush offers an agenda that can be accomplished through Congress. “Most critically, Republicans should reverse the Obama-era policies that have made America weaker, both here and abroad. We need to repeal and replace ObamaCare, eliminate business-killing regulations, and reverse the massive expansion of government. While we protect our borders and our laws, we should also take on the hard work of reforming legal immigration and affirming the role that immigrants play in building up our economy and our nation.” Bush also calls on the new president to “restore American leadership in the world” and “protect and reassure our friends and allies.”

He also calls upon Republicans to repair their party’s tarnished image. “Republicans must restore our brand as the party of conservative ideals, shared prosperity, liberty and responsibility,” he writes. He stresses that this should be done “without stooping to the identity politics of the left. Let’s not focus on angst, grievance and division over race, class or gender.”

Bush makes the point that Trump’s victory was neither a license for Republicans to take reckless action or an excuse to take the reins of power and then rest on their laurels. Democratic overreach and disregard for the will of the people is what handed the Republicans this victory. The voters will hold Mr. Trump accountable if he does not follow through with his promise to “make America great again.”

“The GOP has no excuse for failure,” Bush writes. “We are in charge of both the executive and legislative branches in Washington, and we dominate in the states like never before. We have the power to set the agenda, and we have the responsibility to govern, not merely on behalf of the voters who supported President-elect Trump, but for all Americans.” 

Looming recounts may extend election

If you thought the election was over except for the protests and the formality of the Electoral College, prepare to be disappointed. One recount has already been requested and experts are urging Hillary Clinton file for recounts in three states.

The first recount was requested by Pat McCrory, governor of North Carolina, on Tuesday according to Politico. McCrory, the Republican candidate, was trailing Democrat Roy Cooper, by more than 8,500 votes according to the Cooper campaign. McCrory’s campaign has alleged widespread voter fraud.

The first recount of this election season may not be the last. New York Magazine reports that a team of computer scientists has urged Hillary Clinton to file for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania citing signs that vote totals could have been manipulated.

J. Alex Halderman, director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, was among the scientists who found a suspicious pattern of Clinton performing more poorly in counties with electronic voting machines than where paper ballots were used. The group said that the seven percent difference was large enough to raise the possibility that election computers could have been hacked.

So far no proof of tampering with the election has been found, but the large difference between counties with electronic voting machines and paper ballots is an anomaly that Halderman believes should be investigated. There may be other explanations for the discrepancy as well.

Donald Trump’s margins of victory in Michigan and Pennsylvania were less than one percent. Michigan has not been formally decided, but Clinton trails by 11,000 votes there. She lost Pennsylvania by 68,000 votes. Wisconsin had a margin of one percent, about 27,000 votes. Halderman’s statistical analysis, focused on Wisconsin, shows that there were enough suspicious votes to throw the outcome of these states into question. It would take a reversal of all three states to change the outcome of the Electoral College election, although faithless electors may change that total. As many as six electors have said that they will not vote for Donald Trump.

It is not clear if the suspicious pattern extends to other states as well. Also unclear is whether the North Carolina recount will examine presidential as well as gubernatorial votes.

The deadline to apply for a recount is looming in all three states. NY Magazine reports that Clinton supporters are lobbying for recounts and a forensic examination of voting machines, but the Obama Administration does not want the results challenged in order to smooth the transfer of power.

The possibility of Russian tampering with election results was raised prior to the election. The Obama Administration has blamed Russia for the hack of Democratic National Committee emails. Donald Trump has remained skeptical of the Russian connection, but Mike Pence has indicated that he believes that Russia was behind the email hack.

Whether Hillary will ask for a recount hasn’t been determined yet. The outcome of any recounts and investigation may not change the election, but it does raise the possibility that the election that everyone thought was settled might not be over yet.

Originally published on The Resurgent

How beer and football became a Thanksgiving traditioin

http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/42/163342-050-B59309B3.jpg

This Thanksgiving as millions of Americans settle into a turkey-induced afternoon coma, others will push aside their plates and prepare to partake in that other great American Thanksgiving tradition. The tradition that I speak of is not honoring the memory of the Pilgrims or thanking God for his blessings, although those are also important. The tradition that I speak of is football and beer.

Thanksgiving football games, paired with a cold amber, ale or lager, are a longtime American tradition. In fact, this tradition has its roots in history that predates even the first Thanksgiving turkey. Thanksgiving beer and football goes all the way back to Samoset and Squanto, the Indians who befriended the Pilgrims and taught them how to survive through the harsh New England winters.

On March 16, 1621, an Indian wearing only a loincloth walked into the Pilgrim settlement at Plymouth, Mass. The book, “The Light and the Glory” by Peter Marshall and David Manuel, tells what happened next.

"Welcome!" he suddenly boomed, in a deep, resonant voice. The Pilgrims were too startled to speak. At length they replied with as much gravity as they could muster: "Welcome."

Their visitor fixed them with a piercing stare. "Have you got any beer?" he asked them in flawless English. If they were surprised before, they were astounded now.

"Beer?" one of them managed.

The Indian nodded.

The Pilgrims looked at one another, then turned back to him. "Our beer is gone. Would you like ... some brandy?"

Again the Indian nodded.

The beer-loving Indian was Samoset, one of the few Indians in the New World who spoke English, having learned the language from English fishermen and explorers who visited the New England coast. Samoset soon returned and introduced the colonists to Squanto, another English-speaking native.

Squanto was alone in the world. He had been captured by Captain George Weymouth about 1605 and taken to England, where he spent about 10 years. After returning to North America, he was captured by another Englishman, Thomas Hunt, and sold into slavery in Spain. He escaped and returned to his home in 1619, only to find that his entire tribe, the Patuxets, had been wiped out by smallpox.

His meeting with the English gave Squanto a reason to live. “These English were like little babes,” according to “The Light and the Glory.” Squanto taught them to plant corn, catch fish and “helped in a thousand similar ways, teaching them to stalk deer, plant pumpkins among the corn, refine maple syrup from maple trees, discern which herbs were good to eat and good for medicine, and find the best berries....”

It was the Pilgrim gratitude to both God and Squanto that inspired the first Thanksgiving feast. The joyous celebration lasted for three days. It is truly miraculous that the Pilgrims, thousands of miles from England, would encounter two Indians who spoke their native language and who would take the time to teach them to survive in their new home.

If beer was present (or at least sought) at the earliest Thanksgiving, football came a little later. President Lincoln declared the first fixed Thanksgiving holiday in 1863 and the first Thanksgiving football game came only six years later.

The Philadelphia Evening Telegraph chronicled a Thanksgiving Day football game in 1869 between the Young America Cricket Club and the Germantown Cricket Club. This game came only six weeks after the Rutgers-Princeton game that is widely considered to be America’s first football game.

Yale and Princeton played Thanksgiving Day games from 1876 through 1881 according to Wikipedia. In 1882, the Intercollegiate Football Association began holding a championship game in New York City on Thanksgiving Day. By the time the NFL was organized in 1920, football was already a Thanksgiving staple.

Thanksgiving is properly a day to reflect on God’s blessings. We are truly fortunate to be heirs to the religious liberty sought by the Pilgrims and to live in this land of plenty. But as you celebrate God’s gifts, don’t feel guilty as you enjoy a football game. And if you want to have a Thanksgiving beer, consider raising your glass to Samoset and Squanto, without whom the story of the Pilgrims might have ended very differently.

Originally published on The Resurgent

US military rated 'marginal' to 'weak'

Wikimedia Commons

The Heritage Foundation has released its 2017 Index of US Military Strength, an objective survey of US military infrastructure, its ability to operate in different regions of the world and an assessment of threats currently faced by the US. This year Heritage found that threats to the US were high while the ability of the US to meet them was “marginal” to “weak.”

Heritage notes that the military is assessed on the basis of being able to accomplish three core missions: Defense of the homeland, successful conclusion of a major regional war and protection of freedom of movement through areas in sea, air, space and cyberspace in which the world conducts business. Since WWII, US leaders have consistently worked to maintain a military size that could fight two major regional contingencies (MRCs) at the same time.

The different branches of the US military were rated on capability, capacity and readiness. The Navy, Air Force, Marines and nuclear forces were rated as “marginal” by Heritage while the Army was rated as “weak.” Heritage notes that the Navy is deferring maintenance and facing delays in modernization. The Air Force has a fleet of 1,159 tactical fighters, but lacks the ability to fly all of them due to shortages of pilots and experienced maintenance personnel. Current operations and shortage of funds for the Marine Corps mean that the USMC has only two-thirds of the units that it needs. US nuclear forces depend on older weapons systems while competitor countries are upgrading and expanding.

The Army’s weak rating is the result of trading strength and modernization for the current readiness. Even so, Heritage says that only one-third of army units are at acceptable readiness levels. Budget cuts have forced the Army to increase its reliance on contract maintenance. Brigade combat teams and combat aviation brigades have been reduced by about a third due to budget shortfalls. Heritage says, “The Army is smaller, older, and weaker, a condition that is unlikely to change in the near future.”

In the index, Heritage also rates the threats that the US military is likely to face.  There are six threats that Heritage considers “high” risks. Russia and China are both expanding their militaries and acting aggressively. North Korea reportedly has a missile that can deliver a nuclear warhead to the US and is also working on submarine-launched missile technology that would allow it to park missiles off the shores of American cities. Iran is another potential nuclear threat in spite of President Obama’s deal. Terrorism in the Middle East and in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region round out the largest potential threats.

The bright spot in the Heritage assessment is America’s ability to operate around the world. A strong network of allies in Europe and Asia bolsters US capabilities. These regions are rated as “favorable” to US operations. The Middle East is rated as “moderate” where US advantages are being offset by unstable governments and a reduced presence due to the withdrawal from Iraq.

The change of course signaled by the recent presidential elections may provide a boost to US military budgets. Nevertheless, National Defense Magazine notes that, because of the debt crisis, any increase in military spending will likely be small without entitlement reforms. Such reforms would be fought by the Democrats and possibly by Donald Trump as well. As a candidate, Trump opposed conservative plans to restructure entitlement programs.

In summary, the world is a dangerous place with maturing threats from a number of different countries and terrorist groups. Budget cuts have forced the US military to trade modernization to meet future threats for the ability to maintain current readiness. The Republican victories this year may provide an opportunity to get military readiness back on track.

Originally published on The Resurgent

New oil find in Texas should keep prices low

The U.S. Geological Survey announced this week that it had discovered the what may be the largest untapped supply of oil ever found in America. The discovery sits in the Permian Basin of West Texas near Midland, an already booming oil town that was the childhood home of President George W. Bush.

The find comes amid a two-year oil price slump that has caused pains among Texas companies as well as foreign oil producers like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Russia. Many oil companies in Texas have already filed bankruptcy and many more hover on the brink.

“The fact that this is the largest assessment of continuous oil we have ever done just goes to show that, even in areas that have produced billions of barrels of oil, there is still the potential to find billions more,” said Walter Guidroz of the USGS. “Changes in technology and industry practices can have significant effects on what resources are technically recoverable, and that’s why we continue to perform resource assessments throughout the United States and the world.”

The new find and the oil slump are both made possible by new technology that allows oil to be harvested that was untouchable in the past. Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and the ability to drill for shale oil have vastly increased the amount of the world’s recoverable oil reserves.

The New York Times reports that US domestic oil production has almost doubled in the past few years, largely due to these new technologies. As US production of oil has increased, the need for foreign imports has fallen. Foreign oil companies have struggled to find new markets and prices have fallen as a result.

Over the past few months, oil prices have recovered from less than $20 per barrel to the current $40-50 range. Many wells are not profitable at current prices and have shut down. Likewise, new exploration and projects have lagged because they are not cost effective without a higher price for oil.

Most analysts have predicted that oil prices will take several years to recover to the $60 range where many more wells and projects would be profitable. The likelihood of oil returning to $100 per barrel prices that were frequently seen from 2008 through 2014 seems remote.

The new oil discovery also serves as a reminder of how rapidly things can change. Alarmists have been predicting for years that the world has reached the point of “peak oil,” the point where oil production has reached a maximum and will begin a decline due to diminishing reserves. Far from it.

In the past few years, US and world oil reserves have increased markedly due to new discoveries and new technologies. At the same time, the world is using its oil more efficiently thanks to technological advances in engines and aerodynamics. Even with more people and countries using oil, the world’s oil supplies should be abundant for many years to come. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

The decline of marriage may be over

Marriage on the mend (Public Domain/Pixabay)

It is still too early to tell, but the decline of marriage may be reversing. New data shows that the number of divorces is falling while the marriage rate has ticked up slightly. Both changes have occurred for several consecutive years.

“The decline [of marriage] has stopped,” Wendy Manning, co-director of the National Center for Family and Marriage Research at Bowling Green State University, told Bloomberg.

The center’s research, based on census data, shows that the number of divorces has fallen for three straight years and is currently at its lowest level in 35 years. Conversely, the marriage rate, which has been declining since the 1970s, seems to have bottomed out and stabilized.

The data is based on the marriage and divorce rates for women aged 15 and older. A comparison chart from the center shows that the divorce rate has hovered around 20 since the 1980s and is currently at a low of 16.9. The marriage rate has continually fallen from a high of 76.9 in 1970 and now stands at 32.3.

There is no definitive answer on what has caused the trends in marriage and divorce to change. A major factor in the falling number of divorces could be that there simply aren’t as many marriages to begin with. Breakups by cohabitating or common law couples would not be reflected in the data.

More Americans are waiting longer to get married as well. ABC News reported in June that the average age at the first marriage had increased by about four years since 1970 for both men and women. Women are an average age of 25.1 and men are 26.8 when they first tie the knot. A few more years of maturity at marriage may contribute to fewer divorces.

“We’ve seen a decline of divorce among people who are younger and an increase among people who are older,” noted Manning.

In fact, the divorce rate might be much lower if Baby Boomers were excluded. Bloomberg previously reported that, while divorce rates were down for younger Americans, they were soaring for Baby Boomers. The high divorce rate among Baby Boomers may have contributed to both the delay in marriage and the lower divorce rate for younger generations by making children of divorce more cautious about getting married in the first place.

Whatever the reason, fewer divorces and more marriages is an encouraging sign and a possible antidote to America’s entitlement crisis. Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, pointed out that the “principal cause” of child poverty in the United States was “the absence of married fathers in the home.”

Even the liberal Brookings Institution argues that marriage is an important antidote to poverty. Ron Haskins stressed that children who follow three simple rules have only a two percent chance of growing up to live in poverty. Haskins’ advice? “At least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.”

The news of more marriages and fewer divorces is something that Americans on both sides of the political spectrum can and should celebrate. It means that Americans are improving their own lives as well as those of the next generation. It may also provide the means to shrink the welfare state and attack the debt and entitlement crisis. That is a very good thing.

Originally published on The Resurgent

The decline of marriage may be over

It is still too early to tell, but the decline of marriage may be reversing. New data shows that the number of divorces is falling while the marriage rate has ticked up slightly. Both changes have occurred for several consecutive years.

“The decline [of marriage] has stopped,” Wendy Manning, co-director of the National Center for Family and Marriage Research at Bowling Green State University, told Bloomberg.

The center’s research, based on census data, shows that the number of divorces has fallen for three straight years and is currently at its lowest level in 35 years. Conversely, the marriage rate, which has been declining since the 1970s, seems to have bottomed out and stabilized.

The data is based on the marriage and divorce rates for women aged 15 and older. A comparison chart from the center shows that the divorce rate has hovered around 20 since the 1980s and is currently at a low of 16.9. The marriage rate has continually fallen from a high of 76.9 in 1970 and now stands at 32.3.

There is no definitive answer on what has caused the trends in marriage and divorce to change. A major factor in the falling number of divorces could be that there simply aren’t as many marriages to begin with. Breakups by cohabitating or common law couples would not be reflected in the data.

More Americans are waiting longer to get married as well. ABC News reported in June that the average age at the first marriage had increased by about four years since 1970 for both men and women. Women are an average age of 25.1 and men are 26.8 when they first tie the knot. A few more years of maturity at marriage may contribute to fewer divorces.

“We’ve seen a decline of divorce among people who are younger and an increase among people who are older,” noted Manning.

In fact, the divorce rate might be much lower if Baby Boomers were excluded. Bloomberg previously reported that, while divorce rates were down for younger Americans, they were soaring for Baby Boomers. The high divorce rate among Baby Boomers may have contributed to both the delay in marriage and the lower divorce rate for younger generations by making children of divorce more cautious about getting married in the first place.

Whatever the reason, fewer divorces and more marriages is an encouraging sign and a possible antidote to America’s entitlement crisis. Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, pointed out that the “principal cause” of child poverty in the United States was “the absence of married fathers in the home.”

Even the liberal Brookings Institution argues that marriage is an important antidote to poverty. Ron Haskins stressed that children who follow three simple rules have only a two percent chance of growing up to live in poverty. Haskins’ advice? “At least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.”

The news of more marriages and fewer divorces is something that Americans on both sides of the political spectrum can and should celebrate. It means that Americans are improving their own lives as well as those of the next generation. It may also provide the means to shrink the welfare state and attack the debt and entitlement crisis. That is a very good thing.

Originally published on The Resurgent