We are headed for another month or two of gun control debate and discussion. The president is moving forward with executive orders concerning “ghost guns,” arm braces, and “red flag laws.” However, he has aimed his sites at assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.

For the moment, let’s look at the rhetoric being employed in an effort to ban or significantly restrict the manufacture, sale, and distribution of semi-automatic rifles. Proponents of gun control frequently refer to these sporting rifles as “assault rifles” or as “weapons of war.” This rhetorical device is used to make them scary to anyone who has never been around guns.

They are usually talking about sporting rifles like the AR15, which are very popular. Some estimate that there may be between 15 and 20 million modern sporting rifles now in circulation. It seems very difficult to ban or restrict the AR15 without affecting all other rifles that also use a magazine.

The president also wants to ban what is calls “high-capacity magazines.” That means a magazine holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition. But notice that a small handgun (like the Sig Sauer 365 that fits in your pocket) can hold 12 rounds of ammunition and the magazine is merely four inches long.

A third rhetorical device is to question why anyone would NEED such a rifle for self-defense. But consider that any intruder would be carrying either a semiautomatic handgun or a semiautomatic rifle, equipped with a high-capacity magazine. A homeowner would want to have similar firepower and ammunition to counter what would be in the hands of the intruder.

Don’t let the rhetoric revolving around handguns and rifles prejudice the debate and obscure some obvious issues and concerns.

Crime is dramatically increasing in cities where police department funding has been reduced. That shouldn’t come as a big surprise and is well documented in a commentary that “Violent Crimes Spike in Cities That Defunded the Police.” More than 20 major cities have slashed their police budgets. Let’s look at some examples.

Murders in Portland tripled from July 2020 to February 2021. This took place after “city commissioners voted to cut nearly $16 million from the police budget in response to complaints about police force and racial injustice.”

Homicide rates in Oakland, California spiked dramatically after city leaders set as their goal to cut the police budget in half. For example, homicide rose 314 percent compared the same time last year, while firearm assaults rose by 113 percent.

In New York City, the city council slashed $1 billion from the police budget last summer. They have already seen 76 murders this year and 220 reported shootings.

Minneapolis has been in the news ever since George Floyd died in police custody. The city council diverted more than a million dollars from the police department budget to the Office of Violence Prevention and another $8 million to violence prevention programs.

Chicago has had a surge in gun crimes after the Cook Country Board of Commissioners voted to “redirect money from arresting people and locking them up to housing, health care, and job creation.” Homicides were up 33 percent in the first three months of this year compared to last year.

None of these sobering statistics should come as a surprise. Months ago, I predicted there would be a crime spike in cities that cut law enforcement budgets.

The long-established rules in society seem to be changing. Victor Davis Hanson describes “Ten Radical New Rules That are Changing America.” Let’s look at a few of them.

First, money is a construct. Politicians seem to believe that money can be created out of thin air and that the national debt no longer matters. Previous presidents and administrations at least acknowledged that the money was real and that the debt had to be paid back.

Second, laws are not necessarily binding anymore. He reminds us of the rioters who violated federal and state laws. Some were prosecuted, others not so much.

Third racialism is now acceptable. Being an American used to be the defining principle, but now ethnicity or religion is how so many believe they should be defined.

Fourth, most Americans should be treated like little children. We cannot ask people to provide an ID to vote. We are to follow all of the COVID-19 rules without question.

Fifth, hypocrisy is passé. He says that “virtue-signaling is alive.” We see that when climate activists fly on private jets, and social-justice warriors live in gated communities. Even more extreme is when millionaire elites pose as victims of sexism or racism.

Sixth, McCarthyism is good. Using the cancel culture to destroy lives and careers over incorrect thoughts or casual tweets is good because it saves lives and advances an agenda.

Seventh, wokeness is the new religion. He suggests that as a secular religion is it growing faster and larger than Christianity.

He concludes by noting the most Americans fear these rules but publicly appear to accept them. Perhaps that is due to fear and intimidation. But if we don’t challenge these radical rules, they will be permanent and institutionalized.

Today is usually considered Tax Day. But this year the federal government moved that day to May and to June for Texas residents.

A more important date is Tax Freedom Day. That is the date when your tax burden is lifted. It is calculated by dividing the official government tally of all taxes collected in each year by the amount of all income earned in each year. Put another way, it is when you are no longer working for the government but are now working for yourself and your family.

This year Tax Freedom Day occurs this Saturday. And remember this is an average. Citizens in states like Louisiana already have had their Tax Freedom Day. Citizens in New York have to wait until the middle of May for their Tax Freedom Day. Let me also add that Americans will pay more in taxes than they will spend on food, clothing, and housing combined.

There is one more date worth mentioning. It is called Cost of Government Day. This is the date on which the average American has paid his share of the financial burden imposed by the spending and regulation that occurs on the federal, state, and local levels. This date occurs a few days after the 4th of July. This date is a little less precise since it is difficult to calculate all the costs of government regulations.

Even so, the Cost of Government Day really puts things in perspective. It takes a little more than half of the year to finally get government off your back so that you can begin to earn a living for you and your family.

Both of these dates help us realize what is happening around us. There is a cost, but often we don’t see it. Our taxes are withheld from each paycheck, so we often don’t think about what we are paying. And since the cost of most regulations is hidden, we don’t see those costs either. But imagine if we had to pay all our taxes in one lump sum. You can bet there would be an outcry.

Lester Holt (NBC anchor) recently explained to his audience that fairness is overrated.” He argued that the “idea that we should always give two sides equal weight and merit does not reflect the world we find ourselves in.”

The example he used is certainly one that everyone would accept. “That the sun sets in the west is a fact. Any contrary view does not deserve our time and attention.” But he went on to expand this trivial example to larger issues. “Decisions to not give unsupported arguments equal time are not a dereliction of journalistic responsibility or some kind of agenda. In fact, it’s just the opposite.”

This claim by Lester Holt was too much for Brit Hume (who has spent decades with ABC News and Fox News). On Twitter he observed, “This argument rests on the proposition that the media always know the truth. But they don’t, as his own network’s coverage of the bogus -” and implausible ” Russia collusion tale illustrates. Not to mention the media’s reporting of early Covid 19 advice that turned out wrong.”

In his second Twitter post he acknowledged that “if one side says the White House is made of powdered milk, and the other disagrees, we can safely ignore the milk claim. But political disputes are rarely so cut and dried. So we report what both sides are saying and let viewers and readers make up their own minds.”

We can all agree that we don’t need to provide an alternative viewpoint on whether the sun sets in the west or whether the White House is made of powdered milk. But the argument being used by the major media in this country is that viewers and readers do not need to see or hear an alternative view on issues ranging from the pandemic lockdowns to climate change. They believe fairness has been overrated, and that’s why they frequently ignore important perspectives that don’t fit their narrative.

Would investments by the federal government and state governments help improve America’s infrastructure? The answer is obviously, yes. Is the current bill before Congress about much more than rebuilding America’s infrastructure? Again, the answer is obviously, yes.

The president and his administration promoted it as a “once-in-a-lifetime” infrastructure bill. Given the fact that it will cost at least $2 trillion, you could certainly say that. I say at least, because other politicians are asking for $4 trillion, and one member of Congress suggested $10 trillion. Apparently some members of Congress do believe money grows on trees and are ready to turn our dollars into Monopoly money.

Critics argue that only about five percent of the spending plan goes to roads and bridges. The White House argues that a quarter (25%) will actually fund basic infrastructure. No matter which estimate you accept, that still leaves most of the spending bill allocated to something other than what most of us would consider to be infrastructure.

The bill has $400 billion for expanding health care. There is $213 billion for affordable housing, research training, and development programs. And $50 billion to the National Science Foundation, and $50 billion to the Department of Commerce. And there is what is called the PRO Act that is intended to make it harder for workers to choose to stay out of unions.

In case you wonder who will pay for this, I think you know the answer. The payment plan involves tax hikes that will impact you, your family, and the economy. It’s also likely that we will get the spending without the tax hikes, forcing the Fed to print even more money.

This spending binge is unnecessary. But it will be justified by politicians who will falsely argue that the legislation will build up our crumbling infrastructure. This is not in the country’s best interests.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic House members considered removing an elected member of Congress and replacing her with another Democrat. That did not happen because the Democrat decided to withdraw leaving the elected Iowa Republican in the House of Representatives.

This incident raises lots of questions. The Constitution does allow Congress to disqualify an election, but that power hasn’t been used in decades and has been reserved when there has been serious misconduct. The congressional election was very close, but that hardly gave the House leadership the right to overturn an election.

You may not have even heard about this possible action, which is another reason why I mention it. Imagine, if two years from now Republicans gain control of the House and the new Speaker of the House (likely Kevin McCarthy) decided to disqualify an elected Democrat from serving in the House. Do you think the media would ignore that abuse of power? I think we know the answer.

The reason for the controversy surfaced because the election was so close. The Republican won over the Democrat by merely six votes out of 394,439 votes. The next time you hear someone wonder if one vote counts, remind them of this congressional election that was won by six votes. I have done commentaries in the past documenting elections where the margin of victory was even less.

This incident also illustrates the need for election integrity. As with any election, there were questions about some of the ballots. Should they be counted or not counted? State legislatures in many parts of the country are currently considering legislation or passing legislation that should make our elections more secure.

Sloppy rules and arbitrary changes in election law make contested elections more likely. The election in Iowa illustrates why we need to get it right.

Mike Huckabee warns us about the influence of Big Tech in a recent commentary. He understands that everyone knows that Big Tech has been in the business of collecting data on each of us to sell to advertisers. But then he asks, “did you know that they’re also selling information about us to federal agencies?”

He explains that these companies have been collecting data from different services and then use artificial intelligence to understand our personality traits. Apparently the government is using this information to determine “how to deal with you within the criminal justice system.”

Facebook, for example, scoops up information on the 2.4 billion people each month who use the service by tracking their browsing history. When you go online, it can look at news you read, books you order, and websites you visit. If that is not enough, they also are using a tool called “Off-Facebook Activity” to see your external browsing activity.

Google is gathering data to build profiles of people using their interests, location, and demographics. It is also selling this data to third parties. In fact, Google has actually purchased two of the biggest third-party ad companies.

Through a database called SensorVault, Google also sends information directly to law enforcement. This includes your geographical location which is collected by cell phone towers and GPS signals.

Amazon offers its services to advertisers which include not only browsing history but actual purchases and deliveries. This also includes such information as delivery addresses and credit cards that are used.

For many years, critics have said that Big Tech is beginning to look quite a bit like Big Brother. That certainly seems to be the case.