The Reporter newspaper, Camdenton Missouri

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

(Updated January 15, 2025)

Guest Editorial - Looking back

(Published January 15, 2025)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guest Editorial - Big divide

(Published December 25, 2024)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guest Editorial - Veterans Day

(Published November 13, 2024)

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

I’m talking about our veterans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack also compiled the following.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guest Editorial - How divided

(Published September 11, 2024)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guest Editorial - Next Steps

(Published July 17, 2024)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guest Editorial - It's a roundup

(Published May 22, 2024)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guest Editorial - Loss of support

(Published April 17, 2024)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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