The latest example of either perfidy or incompetence on the part of President Biden has to do with how he and his staff have dealt with classified information. It would seem that Mr. Biden, or someone representing him, took and kept classified documents from his time as Vice President when he left that office. So far, to my knowledge, they’ve been found at a think tank associated with the President, as well as at one of his residences.

I’ll leave the bloviating about the legality of what Mr. Biden did, or had done in his name, to those more knowledgable of the law. I will, based on my experience, comment on the stupidity of what was done.

Classified information, no matter what form it takes, needs to be kept in an approved, inspected, and monitored environment. Information is classified for one simple reason – If people who oppose us have it, people we like will die.

If war plans are known to the enemy in any detail, our servicemen will die in battle, or even before they get to the battlefield.

If the details of how we secure things like sensitive research facilities or nuclear power plants become public knowledge, then they can be infiltrated or defeated, causing the loss of that facility, the knowledge and technology it contains, and the death of the people around it.

And let’s face it, there’s nothing more embarrassing than having to explain why a bunch of your people died because your opponent stole a bunch of knowledge and technology and used that to catch up, if not pass you, in an arms race.

Worst of all, in my opinion, is when what we know about our opponents is made available to those opponents. There are two orders to the damage this can cause. First, the people who provided that information to us die, usually in a rather horrible manner. It’s quite possible that everyone they ever knew joins them. Second, the methods or technology we use to gather data on our opponents will become useless. In either case, the flow of data about our opponents will dry up.

That’s why when I hear reports from Ukraine about how much information is being reaped by listening in on and monitoring Russian cell phones in the conquered territories, my teeth start to itch. Best way to make something stop working is to let your enemy know about it.

And don’t get me started on what happens to people who are exposed as having helped us, even unwittingly. I still have nightmares about things like that.

The ‘why’ of classifying information and the need to protect it is a deep and intricate rabbit hole, but I think you get the point.

The items found at the think tank are concerning, but it could be worse. I’m going to give the people who run that organization the benefit of the doubt and say that they might have had some level of security around the former VP’s and current P’s papers. It may have even met the standard for storing classified material, but just wasn’t approved.

However, we don’t know that for a fact, because nobody went to the trouble of contacting the right people and having them show up with their clipboard and take a look. Honestly, it’s not that big a deal to get that to happen, especially if the person requesting it is the Vice President. Somebody takes a look at your facility and how you do business with whatever it is you have that’s classified, makes sure you’re following some pretty straightforward guidelines, and checks off. Then another somebody looks at your justification for having it, and they check off. Then, every so often, you repeat the process and stay legal.

The higher the sensitivity of the information, the more stringent the requirements are, but none of them are too onerous. Honestly, if you can properly secure a factory that manufactures pharmaceutical opiates, you can secure a facility that stores classified information.

At a very high level, the criteria are something like this:

• Physical security – Approved locks, fences, guards, and buildings. For most things, this can be done in a facility that’s not very different than your average office building.
• Information security – All computers in a secure facility have approved controls on access and monitoring in place. No electronic media or devices in or out unless approved and done in a way that follows the law. All data transmission in or out of the facility is done in a way and following routes that are approved for the highest classification the facility contains. All copies of classified information are secured in approved safes or other storage when not in use, and it doesn’t leave the facility except to go to another secure facility. Hard copies, equipment, and electronic data that are no longer needed are destroyed using approved methods.
• Personnel security – Anyone, including the guards, who will have access to the space have been cleared to have such access by the proper authorities. This may be as simple as filling out some paperwork and waiting a few weeks to be granted access. It may mean filling out a mountain of paperwork and then waiting while government agents have a chat with everyone you ever met. All personnel are required to sign in or out, either physically or electronically through some sort of security badge, when entering and leaving the facility. All personnel and their belongings are searched upon entering and leaving in a manner reminiscent of TSA at the airport. Things like cell phones, cameras, and any electronic media are taken from them during this inspection. For some levels of classification, it takes at least two people to access it, and nobody is ever left alone with access to the information.

Again, rabbit hole, but this covers the high notes.

And please don’t think that meeting these standards requires the creation of a special bunker out on the prairie surrounded by mutant Marines and malinois. You can have a secure area inside of an non-secure facility. It just has to be done right and be blessed by the proper people.

And like I said, the higher the classification, the more stringent the requirements. The CONFIDENTIAL manual on the capabilities of the latest folding shovel issued to SOCOM could likely be kept in a small safe in someone’s office. The SUPER TOP SECRET SQUIRREL CODENAME ORANGUTAN document that details the plan to curb stomp the French the next time they get a little froggy would likely be kept in a safe, inside a vault, under the Pentagon, guarded by the mutant Marines I mentioned earlier.

So, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that the organization President Biden left classified material with after he left the vice-presidency in 2017 was storing the material in a manner that kept it safe.

But we don’t know that for sure, because nobody checked.

However, even if you assume that the residence of a former vice-president is secure, the garage where he keeps his mid-life crisis Corvette is not a secure facility.

That is, unless said Corvette was kept in a windowless, patrolled, locked, guarded, monitored, and inspected facility that was approved by the nice men from the NSA who have had their sense of humor surgically removed.

Even if the garage was locked, who had the key? I will guarantee that whoever went in every few days to check on the car did, and so did the guy who mopped the floor. And unless somebody was checking credentials at the roll up door next to the tool box, we don’t know who actually accessed that space and what they did while they were there.

Remember, when classified information is leaked, people die. That’s why security officers are such bastards. Doing that job right is worth the hate.

And since we’re pointing out the relatively smooth surface of the President’s cerebrim, let’s point out the utter stupidly of crowing about documents President Trump had in his possession after leaving office while having improperly secured classified documents in your own possession WHILE THE FBI WAS RAIDING THE FORMER PRESIDENT’S HOME.

‘Rules for thee, but not for me’ wasn’t cute on the playground when you were in the 4th grade. They have no place in the highest levels of responsibility and authority.

I look forward to watching the rhetorical, legal, and political cat fights that will blossom like slime molds on pond water over this. I just wish I’d bought popcorn futures last year. I’d be able to retire comfortably after this nonsense alone.

So, after 15 votes over several days, Kevin McCarthy is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, replacing the Honorable Nancy Pelosi.

Setting aside my distrust of anything having to do with California, even if it is from the opposite end of the San Joaquin valley from the Bay Area, I’d like to congratulate Mr. McCarthy on attaining what one hopes is the pinnacle of his career.

This has been a long road for the good Speaker. I mean, he started out as a lowly staffer at the ripe age of 22, working his way up to being Speaker of the House through a long and arduous course of crawling over the mangled bodies of his opponents, serving all the right people, and shanking all the wrong people.

In case you haven’t noticed, I’m not impressed. McCarthy may be a consummate politician, but that’s all he is. According to his biography, he has never held a job outside of politics, at least not since college.

Maybe I’m a bit naive, but a member of Congress, especially leadership that is going to have enormous influence on not only how decisions are made, but which decisions are made, should have some real world experience.

I’m not saying every seat filler in the halls of Congress should start out as a hard-scrabble farmer, find success through hard work and grit, and eventually take on a role as a community leader before working their way to Washington. What I am saying is that I have a hard time believing that someone who has spent literally a lifetime learning about life by watching other people live has any business in a position of power.

There is a place for professional politicians, don’t get me wrong. McCarthy obviously has talent in his chosen field. It’s just that, in my honest opinion, such folks should assist leaders, not be anointed to lead.

Here are some things that I cannot find evidence of in Speaker McCarthy’s adult life:

• Military Service
• Manual Labor
• Low-wage work
• Charity work
• Starting and running a business
• Losing a job
• Losing an election

I wish Mr. McCarthy luck in his new position. I hope his 35 years of experience as being nothing more than a politician and legislator serve him well as Speaker of the House.

But I will always question upon what his decisions and opinions are based, since his career is based upon nothing more than a long-term commitment to politics.

There’s a cliche in technical and engineering circles that has been running around in my head for the past few weeks:

Good, fast, or cheap – Pick two

In our system of government, there are three branches – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

In a nutshell, the Legislative branch makes the laws, the Executive branch enforces the laws, and the Judicial ensures that the laws comply with the Constitution and are applied appropriately.

Of the three, changing the Executive branch’s approach to any one issue is probably the easiest. We change out presidents and their administrations every 4 to 8 years. Usually, we go from one party in office to another, at least in my lifetime, so the approach to enforcing the laws changes pretty regularly.

The Judiciary is a lot harder to change. First, federal judges are appointed for life, so there isn’t a lot of regular wholesale change in who is making judicial decisions. If a given President and Congress appoint a lot of judges, then the complexion of the courts will change, but changes take a long time to percolate up to the pinnacle of the Supreme Court.

Second, courts live and die by precedent and stare decisis. The time it takes to make a major change in how the Constitution is interpreted on any significant topic is almost always measured in decades.

The Legislative branch is an odd fish. We hold Congressional elections more often than we do Presidential, so, you’d expect a lot of changes in legislative approach over time. But incumbents tend to stay in power as long as they choose and do not mess up too badly. We hold elections more often, but very few faces, and stances on issues, change on Capitol Hill.

However, Congress is particularly sensitive to politically unpopular ideas. For an example of what happens when the mood of the country swings away from the party in control of Congress, see what happened to the Republicans in 2018 and the Democrats in 2010.

And that’s just for normal legislation. Changing the Constitution is, by design, not easy to do. Add in the popularity contests Congress continually participates in, and any amendment that is at all controversial is going to have a hard time just getting out of the gate.

So, changing the law either by amending the Constitution or by gradual changes via normal legislation can take as long as changing the judiciary.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court (Judicial branch) overturned the Roe v. Wade decision. Roe held that laws overly restricting the practice of abortion were unconstitutional, striking down most state and federal laws that dealt with abortion.

Abortion rights activists in the United States have used Roe as the bedrock upon which to construct their argument, to the exclusion of anything else.

There have been administrations that were either more supportive or more hostile to the pro-choice side of these arguments, but like I said, Presidents come and go with amazing regularity.

Congress has been walking a tight rope on the abortion issue. The Democrat party has been, to one degree or another, supportive of abortion rights. The Republicans have been more or less pro-life. Neither has benefited at the polls when they allow the extremes of the spectrum between “No restrictions” to “No abortions” become the public face of their position on the matter.

So, Congress has done little to nothing of substance on the abortion issue.

For the most part, the fight has fought in the courts. Anti-abortion Republican presidents and state leadership have been slapped down on multiple occasions by courts ruling on the basis of Roe.

This worked for the pro-abortion side of the argument for almost 50 years. It took a multi-decade Republican march through all three branches of government, as well as state and local politics, to create a majority of Supreme Court justices who would vote to overturn Roe.

In this case, the cliche is “Legislative, executive, or judicial, pick two”. The pro-choice side only picked one branch’s area of authority to support their side, so the anti-abortion side only needed to win in one arena.

In the time it took for Republicans to elect enough presidents and senators to put enough pro-life judges and justices on the bench, the Democrats could have at least gotten a Constitutional amendment through Congress and sent to the states for ratification.

The amendment could have even been generalized so that it encompassed more than abortion in order to draw in support:

Congress shall make no law restricting the free exercise of personal choice in health decisions. Congress shall have the power to pass legislation to enforce this amendment.

Simple language that can be sold to the electorate and ratified. Get a non-abortion case to go through the courts and have it incorporated under the 14th Amendment, and you have a powerhouse that will tell state legislations to get their paws off the abortion clinics.

Heck, you might have even gotten some of the people who didn’t want the Covid-19 inoculations to be forced upon them to support something like this.

Even federal legislation that tied state compliance with Roe to funding for things like Medicaid would have prevented the ‘snap back’ effect of several state laws restricting abortion the moment that Roe v. Wade was vacated. The states would have taken the federal government to court over it, and might have won, but at least it’s something to fight with.

Instead, Democrats spent five decades waving the bloody shirt at Republicans in the media every time abortion was mentioned while Congress sat on its collective butt. Abortion rhetoric was used as a campaign issue, but it was what was done instead of doing something truly useful.

In short, since 1973, abortion rights have been truly protected only by one branch of three. Every court case that has happened since has been grounded in one way or another in that one source of authority, which was removed by the actions of that single branch of government.

The protections for abortion rights were built on a foundation of sand, and had nothing else to prop them up when that foundation was eaten away.

Contrast this with another contentious issue – gun rights.

Yes, the progress made to liberalize the protection of rights to gun possession and personal defense at the federal level in the past few decades have been done through the courts, but the arguments were based on an actual amendment to the Constitution.

Yes, things can be rolled back, and anti-gun administrations and legislators can test the limits of the Court’s and electorate’s patience, but the actual bedrock protection of the right can’t be removed with the stroke of a pen or the votes of five justices.

In short, gun rights activists have to lose completely in two arenas, legislative and judicial, before gun rights are disrupted as thoroughly as abortion rights are now.

If abortion rights are truly important to the leadership of the Democrat Party, then they have been poor stewards of their responsibilities. As soon as an administration and Congress that were both friendly to their cause were sworn in, abortion advocates should have been pushing for either a Constitutional amendment or legislation that would have buttressed the judicial underpinnings of their argument.

Instead, they are back where they were in 1973, with a patchwork of laws across the several states. What common ground there was in the debate in the distant past has been all but eradicated by two generations of polarization. If something like Roe is to be brought about, then all of the work to get to Roe and preserve it will have to start again.

In short, if you want to make long-lasting changes to something in our political system, you have the legislative, executive, and judicial. Pick two, because one just isn’t enough.

These are my notes from a conference call that Senator Rand Paul just held. This is not a transcript, just what I jotted down as the Senator spoke and answered questions. If you want to know exactly what was said, you should look up the transcript on the Senator’s website.

Senator Paul’s Opening Comments

Inflation – Talk about impact to people. Government overspending caused inflation. Foreign ownership of 15 to 20% of debt. Federal reserve printing money to buy debt. Money going into economy without adding to economy causing prices to rise.

Suffering is hitting working class and those on fixed incomes hardest. Social Security COLA is not keeping up with inflation.

Anecdote about gas shortages because of government price ceilings in the 1970’s. Worried that we could see something like that again.

Worried that interest rates will spike and cause recession and high unemployment

Talk about the sense of borrowing money to send to Ukraine. Sympathizes with Ukraine, but not sure if it’s appropriate to send so much money overseas right now.

Mentioning that local and state governments tend to have balanced budgets, but not the federal budget.

Has introduced a balanced budget because no budget has been introduced by either party. Supports balanced budget amendment to constitution. Would need to cut 6% of budget every year for 5 years to accomplish. If the budget for 2019 was introduced in 2022, the budget would balance.

PUPPY bill – Related to drug testing using animals. Remove regulation that requires testing on animals. If safety testing can be done without using animals, then it will be allowed. Bi partisan support, should be passed in next few weeks.

Talked about his office budget. Has been able to provide good service to constituents, but has been able to turn in 5.7 million dollars while in office. Would like to see that happen with other members of Congress and government agencies.

Supports giving bonuses to agency heads who can cut their budgets.

Talk about how government is there to protect god-given liberties.

Call In Questions

Q – What will be done about gas prices?

A – Gas is up because of inflation due to government debt and money printing. Also due to less supply from Biden admin policies. Biden admin wants to get rid of gas automobiles. Biden policies about oil and gas drilling and pipelines lowering supply present and future. War in Ukraine has added to issue. We need to increase supply and cut spending to cut inflation.

Q – When or how we will be able to access medical care without wearing a mask?

A – Government threatened doctors to force masking. Some doctors are allowing no masks. Mask mandates don’t work. 90+ % of Americans have had Covid or have been vaccinated, or both. Supports dropping of mandates for masking and testing.

Q – Why can’t issues with Social Security be fixed?

A – Surplus Money from Social Security is used to buy US government debt. No surplus in last few years. Believes that Medicare and Social Security age will need to rise again. Government should keep promises. Wants a non-partisan congressional committee to look at reform.

Q – Any plans to reduce restrictions on farmers to sell from farm directly?

A – Massie Prime Act – Allows local butchers to sell to local customers using local regulations. Small operations should not have to satisfy same requirements as large operations.

Q – What can be done about voting confirmation (email and text after voting)?

A – Elections should use paper ballots. Have to worry about anonymous voting if there is confirmation to you. Wants paper ballots for integrity and recounts. Kentucky legislature passed election integrity bill for paper ballots and in person voting.

Q – Rising gas prices impacting businesses like real estate. Interest rates impacting real estate industry, especially first time home buyers.

A – Thinks that government-induced inflation is going to cause steep rise in interest rates. Fears that inflation will get worse if interest rates don’t rise, which will impact things like mortgages and prices. Should create less government debt and balance budgets. Not seeing any change in behavior from politicians. Predicts double digit interest rates and a recession. Talk about fixed rate versus variable loans.

Tom’s Thoughts

• Senator Paul seems very concerned about the impact of inflation on the economy and lives of working and middle class. He mentioned higher interest rates and a recession on multiple occasions. In a former life, we called that an indicator. If someone who is privy to government statistics and plans repeatedly warns about a coming recession with high interest rates, we’re probably heading into bad economic weather.
• There would have been no mention of Covid-19 if a caller had not asked about it. We can probably call that issue officially off the list of hot topics.
• There was some discussion of supply chain issues and food security, but not much. Measures like being able to get meat from local producers will help with what seems to be coming, but
• There was no mention of efforts in the Congress to further regulate guns and impinge on gun rights. This is probably going to be a big subject in the next election cycle.
• There was no mention of abortion or abortion rights. This is probably going to be a big subject in the next election cycle.
• It’s interesting that the only example of bipartisanship the Senator could point to was a bill that deals with puppies being used for medical research.

This morning, Joe Biden had a bit of an issue climbing the stairs on Air Force One.  He tripped three times, the last fall taking him to his knees.

This video shows the incident twice, once from behind Mr. Biden, and then again from the side.  

Notice what was missing?  

Here’s a hint – There was an Air Force officer at the bottom of those stairs.  There were guards next to that officer.  There were undoubtedly staff and security on the aircraft.

Nobody came to his aid, or even seemed to make the attempt.   Even if Mr. Biden was able to right himself and make it to the top under his own power, you would think that someone at either end would have rushed to assist him.  Nobody was even at the top waiting for him to make sure he was all right.

Biden is not a young man, nor even a middle-aged man.  He is 78 years old, the oldest man to ever occupy the Oval Office.  He is still recovering from broken bones in his foot.  

There is no shame in admitting that you’re not 25, or 55, or even 75.  Mr. Biden needs to take care of himself, even if it means that someone stays by his side when he is negotiating steps or doing anything else when he may fall and be hurt. We live in a society that has become a cult of youth, and no-one in a position of power wants to admit that they aren’t as spry as they used to be.  But there is no shame for a 78 year old man to have someone along to help him when he needs it.

When folks approach 80, they become more fragile, and it is not uncommon for them to have balance issues.  Mr. Biden, like him or not, deserves to be taken care of in the manner that any elder deserves.

One question we should be asking now is why was he allowed to walk up those stairs without at least having someone walk up with him?  

The more important question we need to ask is why we didn’t see a man in uniform sprinting up those steps at the first sign of trouble, or someone else stepping off the airplane to check on Mr. Biden?

February 14, 2021

Dear Mr. Bear,

           Thank you for contacting me regarding the 2020 election, Congress’s vote to certify the election, and the attack at the capitol. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on the issue.  

          When I was sworn into office, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States that is why I voted in favor of certifying the election results. Under the Constitution, Congress is tasked with certifying the electors that the states send to them. A vote against certifying the election is a vote in favor of overturning the election. The founding fathers never intended for Congress to be able to overturn state certified elections. Voting to overturn state-certified elections would be the opposite of what states’ rights Republicans have always advocated for.  

          My oath to the Constitution doesn’t allow me to disobey the law. I cannot vote to overturn the verdict of the states. Such a vote would be to overturn everything held dear by those of us who support the rights of states in this great system of federalism bequeathed to us by our founders. The electoral college was created to devolve the power of selecting presidential electors to the states. The electoral college is, without question, an inseparable friend to those who believe that every American across our vast country deserves to be heard. 

          Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor and privilege to represent the Commonwealth of Kentucky in the United States Senate, and I hope you will continue to share your views with me.  

Sincerely, Rand Paul, M.D. United States Senator