Some members of Congress do quite well in the stock market. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, for example, has a stock portfolio that outperforms the S&P 500. But she isn’t the only member of Congress that does better in the stock market than most hedge fund managers.

Ten years ago (December 27, 2011) I did a commentary based on the two-year-long research by Peter Schweizer. It took him some time to pull together the information because Congress made it extremely difficult to connect the financial activities of politicians with their work activities. He made the case that members of Congress got rich off insider stock tips.

You might wonder why members of Congress aren’t prosecuted. The simple answer is that what they were doing isn’t against the law. Peter Schweizer observed that there were five pages of specific regulations governing the use of congressional office stationery, but not a single word about stock trading.

Not much has changed in Congress, but much has changed in public perception. A poll taken in December of 1,076 likely voters asked this question: “Should members of Congress and their spouses be allowed to trade stocks while serving in Congress?” Three-fourths (75.9%) said no. In fact, this is one issue where there is overwhelming bipartisan support (Democrats – 69.4%, Republicans – 78.2%, Independents – 79.5%).

I think this could be a winning issue this year in the midterm elections. In fact, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has suggested he may try to limit the ability of members of Congress to trade stock if Republicans take the majority in November. But as you might suspect, quite a few members of Congress don’t like the idea.

I think you need to ask candidates this year if they plan to live by the same rules and laws that apply to the rest of us. Insider stock trading needs to stop.

The president and vice-president have been delivering speeches that effectively argue that America has significant numbers of domestic enemies. They aren’t talking about Antifa or Muslim radicals. They are talking about American citizens and state legislatures. Two recent speeches illustrate the point.

On the anniversary of January 6, the president and vice-president compared the Capital riot to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the attack on 9/11. That was supposedly the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.

Later that month, the president and vice-president flew to Atlanta to rail against election integrity laws, which he described as “voter suppression” and previously labelled as “Jim Crow 2.0.” He asked the crowd, “Do you want to be the side of Dr. King or George Wallace?”

The typical response to all this rhetorical flourish is that the president and vice-president are merely engage in hyperbole. They don’t really believe this.

But here is a scary question: What if they do believe it? What if they truly believe their own narrative that the country is engaged in an existential struggle against domestic forces in America? What if they really do believe that they need to marshal the power of the federal government against large portions of the American people who they believe should be labelled domestic terrorists?

My commentary yesterday talked about Attorney General Merrick Garland’s memorandum describing protesting parents as domestic terrorists. And the Biden Justice Department has announced it was forming a new domestic terrorism unit. These actions suggest they do believe the country is facing a greater threat from domestic enemies than any we have faced in 150 years.

Pundits and politicians need to ask this administration what they believe about domestic terrorism and ask them to define who they feel is a domestic enemy.

Back in October and November, I did commentaries about the letter that was sent to the White House from the National School Board Association suggesting that protesting parents could be designated as domestic terrorists. It encouraged the administration to use any laws at its disposal, including the PATRIOT Act originally intended for Muslim terrorists.

The school board letter led to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s memorandum directing the FBI and the US attorneys’ offices to investigate parents protesting school boards. They were to investigate what was called a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.”

At the time, I argued that any true acts of intimidation and violence deserved action from local law enforcement. But most of the examples cited did not involve violence and could hardly justify federal involvement.

The National School Board Association apologized for sending the letter and admitted they should have “had a better process in place to allow for consultation on communication of this significance.” But it turns out, that they did consult with President Biden’s Education secretary, as internal emails obtained from a Freedom of Information Act request. Although an Education Department spokesperson claims the secretary didn’t “solicit a letter” from the school board, I think we understand the process.

One branch of the federal government consults with a private organization that then sends a letter to the federal government and then the attorney general writes a memorandum calling for action against parents. See how this works?

By the way, the administration didn’t apologize. Instead, the Justice Department then announced it was forming a new domestic terrorism unit. No wonder so many Americans have become so disillusioned with this administration.