Category: World Events

Lots of big stuff is happening in the news. I’m going to take a little time and just explain a bit about Iran. If you’re already familiar, my apologies, but I thought it would be good to just give a basic overview of the situation.

So, where to begin? The Iranian Government has been behind much (not all) of the turmoil of the Middle East over the past few decades. The Government which was in place a week or two ago hates two countries: Israel and the United States. Iran is the classic state sponsor of terrorism; if it can’t directly engage in war with its enemies, it funds terrorist groups that do. It funds Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Israel knows this, and every time it gets attacked by Hamas or Hezbollah, it knows Iran’s really behind it all.

For a long time, Iran has had a nuclear program, claiming it’s for peaceful purposes (power generation, nuclear medicine, etc.). The problem, though, is that it’s spent a lot of time and effort enriching Uranium to a very high level, and there’s no purpose to going through so much trouble other than for the construction of a nuclear device. A nuclear reactor used for generating electricity does not require such highly enriched fuel, and there’s no point in stockpiling so much Uranium for medicinal purposes. It’s bomb material, pure and simple. You can see how this, along with advancements to Iran’s ballistic missile program, makes Israel very nervous. Leaders in the U.S. and/or Israel may have received some intelligence about pending developments on this, prompting the recent action against Iran.

Strategically, Iran is physically located at a very important spot. It has the ability to shut down a maritime bottleneck (the Strait of Hormuz) through which a very large percentage of the world’s oil gets shipped. Tanker vessels carrying oil from Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, and others transit this bottleneck every day. Iran can try to shut down all traffic transiting the Strait and hold the oil hostage until it gets what it wants, or until somebody forces the Strait back open. Iran’s navy has taken a beating since hostilities commenced, but even without large vessels it can still launch missiles from shore at ships that try to transit the Strait. Incidentally, China needs a lot of oil, and it previously got a large percentage of its oil imports from Venezuela and from Iran at discounted rates. Now that both of those gravy trains have stopped flowing and nobody wants to send oil through the Strait of Hormuz, China’s going to start making a lot of noise about opening the Strait back up again.

The United States has a history of involvement in Iran’s internal affairs. In the 1950s the CIA helped pull off a coup that installed a leader friendly to the United States and its interests (mostly regarding oil and oil infrastructure). This led to an uprising among the younger generation a couple of decades later, when the U.S.-installed Shah was sidelined and Iran’s recent government model took power during the Islamic Revolution of 1979. It established a Theocracy, with an Ayatollah in charge of the nation. A president is also present, but the appointed-for-life Ayatollah makes the decisions.

Over time the demographics in Iran have worked against the Government. Although the religious enthusiasm of the revolutionaries in 1979 swept them into power, today’s under-45 population is much less interested in the morality police and would rather not deal with the crippling sanctions their government’s policies have incurred from the international community. Uprisings have sputtered to life, only to be put down by a sophisticated and brutal security apparatus. Networks of secret police, informants, morality police, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) put down uprisings through fear, violence, and intimidation.

President Trump is keenly aware of Americans’ distaste for another multi-decade conflict in the Middle East. He appears content to remove the nation’s current rulers to give the general population an opportunity to rise up and establish its own version of government. I don’t have insight into the President’s actual plan, but a major sticking point here is that everyday citizens in Iran do not have access to firearms, and that makes it very tricky for them to overthrow the armed security apparatus. In all likelihood, the theocratic element of Iran’s Government will come to an end (the role of Ayatollah and clerics will be greatly diminished), but the apparatus put in place to maintain the theocracy’s survival will likely take charge in some capacity. If that’s true, Iran will trade a religious authoritarian government for a secular authoritarian government. We’ll see just how willing President Trump is to continue remotely disrupting the power of the establishment in Iran. Eventually, the theory goes, they’ll have enough of the struggle, and they will surrender. An opposition must emerge somehow, either organically within Iran or the descendents of the Shah who was ousted in 1979.

This is a pretty fluid situation and I’m sure things will change by the time this entry gets posted, but President Trump said he expects this operation to last four or five weeks. War Secretary Pete Hegseth stated the objectives of the operation to be threefold: 1. destroy Iranian missiles/missile production, 2. destroy Iran’s navy and other security infrastructure, and 3. they will never have nuclear weapons. Destroy the missile threat, destroy the navy, no nukes. All three of those goals have been brought much closer to reality, but now we have an Iranian military and IRGC who are armed with missiles and are scared and/or motivated to take action. A lot of missiles seem like they’re getting launched, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a strategy behind the launches other than lashing out at anyone who doesn’t help them.

Like I said, it’s a highly fluid situation. There are a lot of articles and a lot of TV coverage about this story, but there’s not always a lot of information to report, so you’ll see and hear a lot of words that aren’t really telling you many concrete facts. Be on the lookout for how Russia and China play this one, what governments in neighboring nations do, and what kind of opposition groups start emerging as serious contenders to take part in a new government. Obviously, there’s much more to come on this topic, so keep an eye on big developments.

When was the last time the majority of Americans agreed on anything?

I’ll get to that in a moment. I have to start wading through some controversial territory to get there; I’ll try to lay it out in a neutral way so you can be better informed.

Whether you call them illegal immigrants or undocumented workers, the topic has been in the news quite a bit lately. Our nation was built on the backs of immigrants, certainly, but there’s a very large difference between the legal and illegal versions of migration into the United States. I don’t want to go too far down this rabbit hole; suffice it to say Democrats are widely in favor of encouraging vast numbers of undocumented workers into the country, and Republicans are widely opposed to it. What’s the rationale here?

Every 10 years, the U.S. performs a census. We want to see how many people live in our country, where they live, and as much demographic data about age, income, household size, ethnicity, etc. as we can easily collect. Ok cool, that sounds reasonable. One of the things the government does with that data is re-apportion congressional representation among the states according to population. Every state gets two senators regardless of how many people live in each state, but aside from that, the more people reside in a state, the more representatives they’ll have in Congress. For example, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming don’t have very many people living there, so they barely have any representation in the House of Representatives. Each of those states gets two electoral points for each senator, plus one point for a congressional representative, for a total of three Electoral College points each. California, Texas, and Florida, on the other hand, have very large populations. Accordingly, there are a lot of congressional districts, and a lot of Electoral College points, associated with those states. I’m sure you’ve watched as the Electoral College map gets filled in on presidential election nights. The states with the largest population are worth the most electoral votes.

California is the single most important state on the Electoral College map. It’s worth more points than any other state. A presidential candidate has to win 270 points in the Electoral College, and right now California accounts for 54 of them. That is, until the next census occurs.

Contrary to the best interest of the American electorate, it turns out congressional representation is not based on how many American citizens reside in a given state; it’s based instead on how many people, including non-citizens, live there. Due to its policies that result in a high cost of living, American citizens have been leaving California for years. They can leave California, but if additional people, citizen or otherwise, move in, it will mitigate the loss of electoral points. If your party normally wins California but people are leaving it in droves, what’s one possible solution to maintaining population levels? Facilitate the arrival of undocumented migrants in areas otherwise losing populations. Doing so tinkers with the census results, which subsequently affects the electoral math.

So what is it the majority of Americans are agreeing on?

It’s a slightly different, but still related topic. What’s your view on having to prove your identity and eligibility when you register to vote? Do you think you should be able to just show up and state your name and address, or should there be something a little more stringent where you have to prove you’re eligible to vote in an election?

According to a recent Pew poll, this is not a controversial topic at all. Overall, 83% of Americans (71% of Democrats and 95% of Republicans) are in favor of having a requirement for voter ID. The numbers are also high when broken down by race. Harry Enten of CNN has been quoted as saying “The bottom line is this: Voter ID is NOT controversial in this country. A photo ID to vote is NOT controversial in this country. It is not controversial by party and it is not controversial by race. The vast majority of Americans agree.”

Why, then, is there so much opposition to it by members of one of our two major political parties on Capitol Hill? Because it reduces opportunities to operate in the margins. When voter rolls are pretty slim, it’s fairly easy to ensure there isn’t any funny business going on regarding fraud in an election. When the voter rolls are swollen, it increases the opportunity for voting shenanigans. Election officials are just like any other job…there never seems to be enough hands to cover the basics. As long as everyone’s acting in good faith and playing by the rules, it’s wonderful to have high percentages of eligible voters participating in their civic rights. Not everyone plays by the rules, however, and fraud is more difficult to catch when it’s hidden among extensive numbers of registered voters in an understaffed voting location.

It may not be a 100% solution, but there’s a bill which has already passed the House, called the “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act,” which aims to make it mandatory to be able to prove citizenship when registering to vote in elections. Again, only American citizens are eligible to vote in American elections. The various states are allowed to run their elections how they want, but they’re all supposed to have a process that ensures only American citizens can cast votes. Not all states have a stringent process. It might be a stretch to say there’s widespread fraud, but fraud does exist. The SAVE Act would establish minimum requirements for registering to vote (strict photo ID requirements and proof of citizenship). The downside is that even American citizens who are eligible to vote may not have easy access to the required proof (not everybody has a passport, for example, and there are plenty of people who wouldn’t be able to easily find their birth certificate). The requirements aren’t particularly onerous; you usually need to provide similar proof when starting a new job. While you don’t always need to have citizenship to get a photo ID, the SAVE Act would mean you must prove citizenship to register to vote. In theory, the combination of secure voter registration and legitimate photo ID should help minimize fraud at the polls.

This doesn’t quite cover everything related to election controversy these days (numerous states are looking at redrawing their congressional districts to manipulate which party wins the district), but hopefully it will help keep you informed as you hear about the SAVE Act in the coming days/weeks. Remember that it’s not the news media’s job to keep you informed on all sides of an issue; it’s the news media’s job to get high ratings and sell advertising space. Straightforward, honest reporting doesn’t draw an audience, but controversy and outrage do. Hopefully this will help you keep the facts straight as you keep an eye on the latest developments.

Well, the Charlie Kirk saga has been covered pretty extensively by now, but I figured I’d throw in my two cents, too. Prior to a week or two ago, I don’t think I’d even heard of him, but now he’s a household name.

Sorry, but I have to get political in this post. I ordinarily try to avoid that, but it seems necessary to help explain some of this. There’s an old political saying that goes something like: “If you aren’t a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart, but if you aren’t a middle-aged conservative, you have no head.” The strategy of the Left (by which I mean Democrats/Liberals) is to appeal to peoples’ feelings; they tug at the heart strings rather than appeal to logic.

Donald Trump has effectively confounded the Democratic Party in the United States. Right now Democrats struggle to even articulate what their platform is. All they do is oppose whatever Trump advocates for. Party leaders stoke anger in their base because when you keep people seeing red, it reduces their capacity for rational thought. At this point fostering rage is the only thing they have. That’s how we’ve arrived in our current absurd situation; even if something is a good idea, if Donald Trump happens to support it, it is to be violently opposed. We now find ourselves in an environment where the Left opposes cracking down on violent crime and drug use, releases those with violent criminal histories, and opposes the enforcement of laws that have long been on the books, simply because Trump supports them and they believe there’s no possible way to find common ground with someone they label as so terrible.

The politicians themselves don’t believe the statements they’re making about how dire the situation is. It’s theater. It’s for the cameras. They don’t really believe Trump is going to throw them in jail for opposing him. If they did, they’d flee the country or go into hiding. It’s simply the rhetoric they use to keep their base engaged and fired up. A normal human being understands these people don’t believe the things coming out of their own mouths. For a while they tried the whole “he’s a threat to Democracy” thing, but that approach lost a lot of its effectiveness when the landslide electoral victory which installed Trump in the White House a second time was the direct result of Democracy in action. The Left, decimated and leaderless in the wake of the election, then had to crank up the rhetorical intensity, to the more recent claims of aspiring fascist dictator.

The problem is that when you keep things at a boil for so long, even if you don’t buy in to what you’re saying, there are people listening to you who do. They figure “a Representative/Senator gets to see it up close each and every day, they know even better than I do what a $@&#! that guy is.” The average Joes and Janes who get hyper political tend to spend time surrounded by people of the same opinion. Then, when they search things on YouTube, it follows each video with suggestions on similar videos. They don’t hear any other viewpoints, so they get further entrenched in their own. The boil builds further.

After living in an echo chamber of hate and vitriol for so long, eventually somebody from the more easily influenced among us says to themselves “here’s this threat, this guy who’s a danger to the country, and even to the world, who shouldn’t be president. Everybody I talk to knows it, but nobody’s doing anything about it! You know what? If nobody else is willing to do anything about it, I will!” This type of rhetoric and environment already radicalized two men enough to attempt to assassinate Donald Trump. One guy actually pulled the trigger and even struck then-candidate Trump, and the second attempt was foiled before the shooter had Trump in his sights.

For a while people on both sides started to realize the heat had been turned up too high. They backed off for a little, but a 24-hour news cycle demands something to report, even if nothing’s there. News cycles of this sort are incapable of toning things down; they can only ratchet things up. (Case in point – the word “unprecedented” has been used so often the word’s now lost a lot of its impact.) News channels simply cannot throttle back; they have to up the ante just to maintain ratings. Try going back and watching news coverage from the days of George W. Bush, who at the time was a highly controversial president. You’ll long for those “simpler” times. Is it any wonder people who watch a lot of news coverage for any length of time experience increased levels of anxiety?

Well, imagine you’re someone who’s been radicalized enough to become violent. You’ve seen Trump survive two assassination attempts, and figure he’s a pretty hard target to reach and his security has only increased. So who else can you take a look at?

Details are still emerging, so I don’t want to speculate on specifics, but evidently the shooter at the Utah Valley University campus determined it was acceptable to snuff out the life of someone who espouses a viewpoint contrary to his own. Charlie Kirk voiced such an opinion, was a known Trump supporter, and presented an opportunity. The gunman saw an opportunity and took it.

I’ll concede that while neither side is completely guiltless of exaggerating the rhetoric, it’s far easier to find inflammatory remarks from the Left than it is from the Right. (For every Marjorie Taylor Greene there’s a “Squad.”) I’m not sure why higher numbers of radicalized criminals come from the Left than from the Right. Maybe it’s the Left’s dependence on emotions, or would-be Right-leaning radicals having the viewpoint of “as long as Government stays out of my business, I don’t care.”

We need a reset. We need to be willing to listen to people with different opinions. Republicans: continue pointing out that this level of highly charged rhetoric contributed to the loss of life, and it can’t continue. Democrats: turn down the heat and for goodness’ sake, come up with a platform that appeals to people in the center rather than on the fringe. You’re on the wrong side of just about every 80/20 issue. Both sides: You need to work together to get something done. Start with some bipartisan stuff like stopping Daylight Savings Time or something easy for both sides to agree on. News media: diversify your coverage! With multiple 24-hour news channels there’d better be more than six to eight main stories…there’s more going on in this world than politics; mix in some good news, too, even if it means your ratings take a hit. Don’t worry, you’ll still get sponsors as long as people are watching you.

We’re losing our capacity to accept that not everyone thinks the way we do. Charlie Kirk didn’t spread hate; he challenged the basis for viewpoints. Healthy debate over ideas used to be an important thing in this nation, but we’ve moved from attacking ideas to attacking their supporters. Pray we’d all take a step back from the brink and see those with opposing viewpoints for who we are…fellow humans.

Well here we are, less than two weeks out from the election.

We’ve reached the point in election season where polls have begun tightening. This is normal, and is kind of a predictable thing. This explanation for why this happens is going to sound a little conspiracy-theory-ish, but you can go back and look at data from past elections and find it holds true in many cases.

To be honest, polling data isn’t super useful except for giving news commentators something to talk about. If that’s true, why start showing polling information months ahead of the election? The answer is a little counterintuitive. Poll results are released very early for the purpose of beginning to shape public opinion, not to measure it. Pollsters are very rarely politically agnostic. They want to steer the public toward a certain outcome, either by disheartening people supporting one candidate or by making them want to throw in with the winning team. This is why you’ll hear campaigns sometimes refer to their internal polling data. They wouldn’t need internal polling if the publicly available polling was reliable.

All right, so pollsters want to shape public opinion, but why do polls start tightening as the race nears an end? Well, it’s because pollsters aren’t stupid. After this election, there will be another election, and then another one after that. As political races near their conclusion, pollsters begin conducting polls more accurately, enabling their future selves to showcase accurate examples of their past work, including working with solid methodologies and appropriate sample sizes, to potential clients. As those methodologies change, they move away from tactics used for shaping opinion, and more toward those used to capture accurate snapshots of it. One way that’s done is by moving toward a more equal balance of both sides of an issue in the polling data (instead of an early poll of 1043 people comprising 573 Democrats and 470 Republicans, they’ll move closer to a 50/50 split, for example).

Just a note on why Donald Trump’s actual level of support is normally more than what shows up in polls. Political pundits, the news media, and a variety of others have done such a good job demonizing Trump, making people think he’s “unhinged” or a “threat to Democracy,” that people are sometimes reluctant to express support for him to anyone outside their trusted friends/family. They just don’t feel safe being honest with pollsters looking to get an idea of the level of support each candidate has. They’re more likely than Kamala Harris supporters to either skip answering a survey altogether or answer “I’m undecided” instead of verbalizing their “controversial” support for Trump. I think this is one of the biggest reasons Trump’s level of support gets underestimated. I think Trump is more likely to have this “hidden support” than Harris is. If that’s true, Harris’ level of support in the polls is about as good as it’s going to get, but Trump could still have some additional room to run.

As far as the national poll, the Democratic candidate usually wins that one. It’s not how you win the White House, though. Our elections are not decided by popular vote; they’re decided by the Electoral College method. National polling is essentially meaningless. You win the presidency by getting to 270 electoral votes, not by winning the popular vote. That’s why accurate polling from battleground states is so highly sought after.

If you live in a battleground state, you’re probably sick of seeing political ads on TV, hearing them on the radio, or getting them in your mailbox. I can’t help with the TV and radio versions, but I can tell you how to cut back on the amount of junk mail, phone calls, and door knocks from campaign volunteers you receive. Campaigns can be very smart with the money available to them. They don’t often spend money on canvassing or flyers when they don’t need to. Kamala Harris doesn’t need to campaign in Massachusetts or Maryland; she’s going to win those states. It would be a waste of money then, to send political flyers to supporters in those states. That money would be put to better use in a state or area where the outcome is less certain.

You may already know that your voting record is publicly available. Not your record of who you’ve voted for, mind you…your record of past elections you’ve shown up to vote in. Cost-minded campaign officials target the people with a demonstrated history of voting. As early- and mail-in voting begins, election officials remove the names of people who have voted from the pool of remaining eligible voters. This data is available to all campaigns. If they know you still haven’t voted, they see you as someone they still want to send advertisements to. If you want to help a campaign financially without actually donating to them, vote early so the campaign can spend its resources on someone who may still be considering voting. If you want to stop getting phone calls and junk mail, vote early. Doing so will remove you from the list of registered voters still eligible to vote, rather than you.

One final tip. Let’s say you’re not happy with either candidate but will still show up to vote for your choice of Senator and Congressional Representative. Many people doing this will skip over the presidential portion of the ballot. That’s something you don’t want to do. Doing it this way enables somebody without scruples, whoever that might be, to hijack your legitimate ballot and vote for their preferred candidate, having it count as much as every other ballot during a recount. Still don’t want to vote for either of the major party candidates? Choose somebody to write in. I hear Mickey Mouse consistently appears as one of the top write-in candidates. Writing in someone’s name, even if it’s not a real person, prevents the ballot from being misused in that capacity.

Keep the elections in your prayers. No matter where we are two weeks from now, almost half of the country is going to be unhappy with the outcome. Pray that the process would be secure, that people will trust the system, and that the winner would be a president for all Americans. We know nobody in power gets there without God’s allowing them to, but outcomes can still be tough to accept when your will doesn’t line up with God’s.

Well good golly. Things are happening so fast these days, this post will probably be outdated before it goes live!

President Biden has removed himself from consideration for the 2024 election. The poor guy got pressured from everybody to drop out, and he finally gave in before they made it really ugly for him. I can’t say I blame him, though I hope I will have retired at a much earlier age than him! What does this all mean for the 2024 Democratic ticket? At this point, it’s tough to say with certainty. Right now there’s a very large effort underway to portray Vice President Kamala Harris as the nominee.

Mind you, that doesn’t mean she’s the best candidate. President Biden endorsed her the day he dropped out of the race, and people rallied behind her very quickly. This is probably a mistake on the Democrats’ part. I acknowledge the short timeline between now and the election drives a desire to quickly coalesce behind someone, but I think Democrats would be better served by taking more time to figure out who that “someone” should be.

Democratic voters have been exceedingly anxious since the Biden/Trump debate, when their candidate’s “A Game” was discovered to be at best a C minus. In hindsight, folks are realizing a lot of people have been covering up President Biden’s decline for a long time now. By comparison, Harris looks young and vibrant, and Democratic voters were quick to rally to her side because they’re more or less excited to have anybody besides the President. Right now polls suggest things are very tight between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, but I expect there to be some changes to the polling as the Veep gets out in front of more cameras or people and starts giving unscripted interviews.

Kamala Harris isn’t known for her gravitas or political acumen. (If you want a few giggles, search YouTube for “Kamala Harris – What can be unburdened by what has been (compilation).”) If she’s named the Democratic nominee, it’s definitely not for her merit as a political heavyweight, and if it’s not for her merit, we’re likely to be consumed by a fresh round of identity politics between now and the election. If she ends up the nominee, she’s going to need someone on the ticket with her who can counterbalance some of her weaknesses. Whoever it is, look for them to be a strong public speaker with a sharp wit, probably from a swing state.

But I’m not yet convinced Kamala Harris will be the Democratic nominee this cycle. Although many high-level Democrats have endorsed her as their nominee, she still doesn’t have the endorsement of Barak Obama or Nancy Pelosi. If those two give her their blessing, it’s a done deal. Until then, nothing’s for certain. When Biden dropped out of the race it freed the delegates he won in primary elections to vote for whoever they’d like; even though enough of them have pledged their support to Harris to secure the nomination, that pledged support isn’t binding. We may not actually know who the nominee is until the last night of the Democratic National Convention next month. From a strategy perspective, the best thing to do would be to let the excitement over Harris die down a little, get some more accurate polling information from Independents as people get a better handle on who Kamala Harris is and whether they want her as President, and then based on that and whoever else is available, pick your best candidate to be the nominee in a theatrical and dramatic way at the convention. I expect there are two main factions in the Democratic Party right now: the portion very vocal about supporting Harris, and the very quiet portion who’s fully aware of her flaws and weaknesses and is looking for an alternative and a way to install him or her as the nominee without severely disrespecting Ms. Harris in front of the whole world. Something that could increase Harris’s chances would be if Joe leaves the Oval Office before the convention. It would destroy Democratic unity to have Harris be president for just a couple weeks before announcing someone else will run to succeed her.

The irony of all this, of course, is that for all the talk of Trump being a threat to democracy and the Constitution, the fact of the matter is that whoever the Democratic candidate for President ends up being will have become the nominee without winning any primary elections. No everyday citizens will have voted for him or her. Kinda shady to bypass the will of the people, don’t you think? I understand these are unusual circumstances, but the fact remains the next Democratic nominee could be chosen by a small group of powerful people in a dark, smoky room without the electorate’s approval. Realistically there’s not enough time to organize a new set of primary elections so this is largely unavoidable, but this will forever be an interesting little asterisk in the history of American Democracy.

Another question is “What now happens to the ballots which have Joe Biden’s name on them already?” With President Biden forcefully insisting for weeks he’d be staying in the race, and the Republican National Convention having concluded by nominating Donald Trump as its candidate, it’s easy to understand if election officials said “go ahead and print the 2024 ballots using the names Joe Biden and Donald Trump.” Well right now only one of those candidates remains in the race. A very simple question suddenly becomes very complicated: “What happens when people vote for Joe Biden on those ballots?”

It depends on the election laws of the state the citizen is voting in, and we’ve got more than 50 different electoral jurisdictions (states, territories, districts, etc.), each with their own laws. Common sense dictates they’d be counted for whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being, but it may not play out that way. The best thing to do would be to move heaven and earth to get new ballots printed with the right names, otherwise Trump may very well end up winning some traditionally blue states on a technicality. If that happens, you can expect another storming of the Capitol Building in DC, this time by Democratic protesters.

In the meantime, look for some countries to take advantage of the U.S. disarray. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea all have something to gain when the U.S. is weak or having a bad day, so be on the lookout for one or more of them to make some kind of move before Inauguration Day.

As always, keep our nation in prayer; we never seem to be short on unrest. No matter who wins in November, half the country’s not going to be happy about it. President Biden is still in charge, so keep him in your prayers as well. And finally, just because your neighbor doesn’t agree with you politically, help ‘em out if they need a hand. After all, Americans should come together when things are tough.