

Title Page

Musings of a Baby Boomer

Wayne Simmes

Copyright 2016

Smashwords edition

### Musings of a Baby Boomer

February 19, 2016

Donald Trump

I hear people say all the time that they cannot understand how anyone could vote for a reality television star. Of course, they are referring to the fact that Donald Trump is not only running for the Republican nomination but is apparently winning by a large margin. I believe the answer is that many people are sick and tired of politicians. This is not a new phenomenon.

I remember when Ross Perot ran for president back in 1992 against George Bush and Bill Clinton. Perot was not a politician but rather an American businessman. Until he dropped out of the race because of threats against his family, he was leading in the national polls. I for one voted for him because I was sick and tired of the major parties putting people up for nomination that were by far from the best the country had to offer. I believed that if Perot was the worst president the country had ever seen and I saw no way that could be possible, that at least we would have sent a message to the Republican and Democratic party that we would no longer put up with the corruption.

Since that time it has gotten worse, not better. Just look at the Democratic primaries if you do not believe me. Hillary Clinton barely eked out a win in Iowa, and many people think she cheated to do that and lost by a landslide in New Hampshire, and yet she is ahead of Sanders by 400 delegates at this point. How is that possible? Because the system is corrupt. Instead of allowing the American people to choose who they want to be on the ticket, the Democratic party has fixed the election in Clinton's favor.

Our political system is rigged. I don't know how the Republican party will stop Trump, but I do not doubt that they will find a way.

We, the people no longer matter in the election process.

February 21, 2016

Are we really more fortunate than other people?

I spotted a post on Facebook from a good friend that lives in Phoenix, Arizona this morning. It said that if you are more fortunate than other people that you should get a longer table, not build a wall. My reply to that was that we are not more fortunate. We are 19 trillion dollars in debt. To put that into perspective, that is more money than has ever been printed.

I came across an article yesterday where an economist claimed that it was now mathematically impossible to pay off the national debt. That article was written in 2010 when the debt was a paltry 12 trillion dollars. He argued that if you took every dollar produced in the United States for one year, it would not come close to pay off the debt and since the country would grind to a halt with no one having money to buy goods or services the situation would become worse, not better.

Now I am sure that someone out there is going to make an argument that if we just tax the rich enough, we can overcome our problem. See again above, if you took every dollar that everyone made, not only the rich, it would not solve the problem.

The reason I am positive that we can never pay off the National Debt is that no one is suggesting that they have a plan to balance the budget anytime soon. I think the last election cycle there were a few people that talked about reducing the deficit within say 10 years, but none of them said they could balance the budget in that period.

Now understand, whether you like or hate the current crop of presidential candidates, one would have to assume that a few of them are at the very least intelligent individuals. So one would think that if there was a solution to this massive problem that one of them would offer a solution. But no one has.

In fact, on the Democratic side, both candidates are not only avoiding talking about the debt but are espousing new and better ways to spend even more money that we don't have. The Republicans are just ignoring the problem. Of sure some of them are talking about tax reform, but not one of their proposals has included how their grandiose ideas will pay off the debt or balance the budget.

So is there a solution. Of course. But it is so terrible, so unthinkable, so devastating that no one will ever propose it. The answer is to declare bankruptcy and start a new game with one important rule, that our country can never again spend more money than they take in in revenue.

There is an old saying whether something is a good idea "depends on whose ox is being gored." If we were to declare bankruptcy, everyone's ox would be gored. There would be no more welfare, no more social security, no more medicare or Medicaid. Every single person in the country would suffer extreme hardship. And yet it is the only solution so at some point it will have to come. The question is how long into the future, can we put it off? Yes, it will come sooner if we elect someone that wants to spend even more money.

Now for the good news, I am 72 years old, so hopefully, I will be dead and gone before bankruptcy arrives.

March 2, 2016

Is this the end of our way of life?

It is being touted that if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination that it will be the end of the Republican party. Personally, I am not sure that would not be a good thing. The Republican party has been a joke for years. While they have been talking fiscal responsibility for years, they continue to follow the democratic party in raising the debt ceiling year after year without much of a fight. Perhaps we need to have a new party led by an outsider to balance the greed of the Democrats.

What I am more worried about is whether we have reached the point where our way of life will soon be over. With the election of either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, we will be open for eight more years of unbridled spending. We have already reached the point where there is no way we can ever pay down the debt. I was just hoping that we could slow the trend enough to put off bankruptcy for enough years that I would not be alive to see the end.

When the United States was just being formed, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor wrote that democracies were all doomed to failure. Here is his quote:

" **A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."**

During the last presidential election, Mitt Romney inadvertently warned that we had reached that point when he said that 47 percent of the people would never vote for him because of their greed. The election results proved him right. Even though Obama was seen as the worst president in the history of our nation, he was elected by a landslide.

Now we have one last chance to turn the tide. A Clinton victory in the fall would be a disaster, but I see no way enough people will put aside their greed to avoid it.

March 3, 2016

The Republican establishment is at it again

Sixteen people started out on the quest for the Republican nomination. Most of them were establishment darlings. One by one they fell by the way, and now we are left with only Marco Rubio that the establishment could even manage to choke down.

So instead of getting behind an outsider that stands a chance of getting elected, they trot out a loser in Mitt Romney to attack the front runner. Their strategy is for people to vote for different people in different states, i.e., Rubio in Florida and Kasich in Ohio. Not with the intention of either one of them winning enough delegates to gain the nomination but rather just so that together they will win enough delegates to keep Trump from getting it.

Then when no one has enough delegates for a first-ballot win, they can push Romney on us again. Keep in mind that he is such a loser that he could not even defeat a man that many of us believe is the worst president that this country has ever seen.

This is a prime reason that the Republican party is doomed. They care nothing about what the American people want, they only care about keeping the power where it is. Of course, the democrat party operates the same way. They just are not stupid enough to let their subjects know about it.

March 4, 2016

Glenn Beck is a lunatic

I listened to some of Glenn Beck's program in the car this morning. He was railing against Donald Trump and comparing him to Adolph Hitler. Apparently, Trump had said that he would go after the wives of terrorists because they knew what was going to happen before the World Trade Center attacks. Beck said that is not America. "We don't do those types of things," he railed.

I am telling you that he is entirely wrong. If we did not go after civilians during wartime we would never have won one. The Civil War might have gone on for a few more years devastating our economy if Sherman had not employed the scorched earth policy. He did not just attack military targets but instead burned everything to the ground along his path, leaving women and children to starve to death along with the Confederate soldiers.

During the Indian wars, our military attacked villages and killed women and children along with adult males. Perhaps that was a bad thing, but it did take the will to fight away from the Indians.

World War II would have gone on indefinitely if Truman had not dropped two atomic bombs on civilian cities. The Japanese soldiers did not care if they lost their own lives. In fact, they believed that dying in battle for their emperor was an honorable thing to do. So they would have fought on to the last man. But killing hundreds of thousands of civilians changed all that, bringing a quick end to the war.

The reason these radical terrorists continue to attack innocent people is that they have nothing to fear. They believe that dying for Allah is a good thing. So they send a few young people on suicide attacks, here and there, killing as many innocent women and children as they can to take the fight out of the Infidel.

Bin Laden attacked our country with immunity killing thousands of innocent men women and children because he had nothing to fear. It was common knowledge that Saudi Arabia was funding him, but we did nothing to that country in retaliation. If we had dropped an atomic bomb in the middle of Riyadh, maybe those supporting terrorists would have thought twice before doing it again.

Would I go after the families of terrorists? Perhaps if I could know for sure that they knew and supported their terrorist families. But I do know that what we are doing now, which is effectively nothing is not working. We need to make terrorists pay a terrible price for their actions.

At least Trump wants to do something to make them pay that price. Beck is a lunatic if he believes that we can win the war on terror by only going after military targets.

March 7, 2016

Is Climate Change Real?

The wife of an old friend posted on Facebook the other day a list, perhaps a manifesto against those of us stupid enough to believe in conservative values. The top of her list was "Climate Change is Real."

My initial reaction to that was a desire to argue, to set her straight, but then I realized that you can not argue with that point. Our climate is constantly changing. It always has and always will. Some periods of time are warmer, and some periods of time are cooler. Sometimes sections of the world have violent storms and other times those same areas have peaceful tranquility. Some years one area of the country will be in a drought while different parts will be almost flooded out. And then they reverse at different times. When I lived in Oklahoma they had a saying, "If you don't like the weather, wait a minute."

So her statement is true. Here is another true statement. There are always those that will find a way to take advantage of the changing weather to make a fortune by scamming the populace. In the old days, they called them rainmakers. They knew that when a drought happened that they could play on the fears of the masses and fleece them out of their hard-earned money. "Step back nonbeliever or the rain will never come, somebody keep those fires burning, somebody beat the drum." And of course, don't forget to give me your entire life savings or my magic won't work. The idea of attracting lightning by beating on a drum seems ridiculous but these flimflam artists were masters at getting people to believe things.

Today we have an entirely new group of flimflam artists led by Al Gore and his bootlicking cohorts. They have found that fortunes can be made by scaring the populace into thinking that if they don't quit burning fossil fuels that the planet is going to become uninhabitable. If you use incandescent light bulbs, the polar bears will become extinct. Why look at that adorable little ball of white fur floating off into the sea on that slab of melting ice. He is the last of his kind. So we stopped using light bulbs made in the United States and started using those made in China. I wonder how much Al made off of that move? What I do know is that thousands of Americans lost their jobs over the move.

Oh and the polar bears? I guess it must have worked since there are far more bears today than there was then. Amazing how that one little white ball of fun managed to multiply so rapidly.

Then the modern rainmakers managed to convince those in government to invest in new forms of alternative energy. Here an article from the Daily Signal that shows how well that has worked out.

It is no secret that President Obama's and green energy supporters' (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures to make it seem like a rare case.

The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government's picking winners and losers in the energy market have cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It merely means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would've found the financial support in the private market.

So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration's Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

But those failures do not deter these geniuses from continuing to force these losing technologies on the public. Obama continues to announce his war on coal, trying to drive an American industry out of business in favor of more foreign companies.

So like the rainmakers of old, climate alarmists have found a way to fleece you out of your hard earned money and destroy American jobs in the process.

March 8, 2016

Why is Hillary Clinton not in prison

National Security **:** The Washington Post, of all places, found that not only did Hillary Clinton send and receive classified material on her unsecured email server as Secretary of State, but she also wrote dozens of classified emails herself.

To understand the implications of this revelation, let's rewind the clock to almost exactly one year ago when Clinton first addressed her private email controversy at a press conference held in the United Nations building.

A  reporter asked Clinton whether she was "ever specifically briefed on the security implications of using your own email server and using your personal address to email with the president?"

Her answer was emphatic: "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material."

Then she went on: "I'm certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."

The first claim had been proved false long ago, once the State Department started releasing what would end up being 2,093 of Clinton's emails that it said contained classified material.

Once those emails started emerging, Clinton changed her story to say that she never "knowingly" sent or received classified information, because none of the messages were so marked. That excuse fell by the wayside when emails turned up containing information deemed "classified at birth." Then several showed up that couldn't be released at all because their classification rating was so high.

 The Post's latest revelations, however, are particularly damning. It found that three-quarters of the classified emails she sent were written by Clinton herself.

Saying she didn't know the information was classified because it wasn't marked makes no sense since she was the one who would have been responsible for marking it in the first place.

And, since she claims that she was "well aware of the classification requirements," she can't now claim that she was ignorant of the nature of the information she was sending.

As this story has unfolded over the past year, Clinton has tried to brush it aside as a partisan witch hunt. When that didn't wash, she decided to blame the State Department for "over classifying" information or charged that it was just the result of interagency squabbles.

Clinton also tried to  smear the inspectors general for State and the intelligence community, both of whom were appointed by President Obama.

But what she has never done is admit the truth. Namely, that she set up her private email account as a way to shield her communications from public scrutiny — a tactic that worked for a time — and that in doing so she gave little thought to the national security implications.

Her cavalier attitude apparently set the tone for the department. The Post notes that top aid John Sullivan "was the most frequent author of classified emails," and other top officials, Cheryl Mills, and Huma Abedin, "authored dozens of such notes."

Under the law, gross negligence in handling classified material is all that's required for a government official to face criminal charges. At this point, is there anyone who can honestly say that Clinton wasn't grossly negligent?

March 11, 2016

Hillary Clinton is such a class act

On Wednesday night, the woman that would be President called the mother of one of the Benghazi victims a liar. But the facts show that it was Clinton that lied when she told the families of those victims that they died because of some obscure video and not terrorism.

Now I ask you who would you believe, a woman running for the highest office in the land, who has repeatedly lied to the American public or someone who has no political agenda at all?

Here is the proof:

At the casket ceremony for the Benghazi victims, Clinton repeated this line of rhetoric, saying:

This has been a stressful week for the State Department and our country. We've seen the massive assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.

But in an email she sent to her daughter Chelsea just hours after the attack, Hillary Clinton said the terrorist attack had been carried out by an "Al Queda-like group," implying she knew it had been premeditated terrorism.

As _The Federalist_ reported in October, Hillary's own e-mail correspondence shows that from day one Clinton had two different stories surrounding the cause of the Benghazi attack. Under her leadership, the State Department pushed out a false, and politically advantageous, narrative to the American people blaming an Internet video, while privately acknowledging that the events in Benghazi were purely motivated by organized Islamic terrorism.

Do not vote for this liar.

March 12, 2016

When did the United States become a Nazi State

The attorney general of the United States called on the FBI to look into prosecuting those that do not fall into line with the government's view of climate change. She, along with our President, claim that the science is settled and those that do not agree should be prosecuted. Now let me wonder when did we lose our freedom to disagree with our government?

Secondly, let me state my belief that as long as even one reputable scientist disagrees that climate change is man-made that the science is not settled. Also it should be every citizen's right to questions whether some if not many of these so-called experts that are preaching doom and gloom do not have a monetary motive behind their findings.

Read the article I have enclosed and be afraid for your freedom, be very afraid.

Attorney General Lynch Looks Into Prosecuting 'Climate Change Deniers'

By Hans von Spakovsky | March 11, 2016, | 12:08 PM EST

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch

In news that should shock and anger Americans, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch  told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that not only has she discussed internally the possibility of pursuing civil actions against so-called "climate change deniers," but she has "referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action."

Lynch was responding to a question from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who urged Lynch to prosecute those who "pretend that the science of carbon emissions' dangers is unsettled," particularly those in the "fossil fuel industry" who supposedly have constructed a "climate denial apparatus." Lynch is apparently following in the footsteps of California Attorney General Kamala Harris and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, both of whom have opened up investigations of ExxonMobil for allegedly lying to the public and their shareholders about climate change.

None of the public officials involved in this abuse of the prosecutorial power of the government recognize the outrageousness of what they are doing or are urging the FBI and the Justice Department to do. They want to investigate and prosecute corporations and individuals for their opinions on an unproven _scientific theory_ , for which there is not a consensus,  despite inaccurate claims to the contrary.

This not only represents a severe blow against the free flow of ideas and the vigorous debate over scientific issues that is a hallmark of an advanced, technological society like ours, but it is also a fundamental violation of the First Amendment. Will the FBI's possible investigation include going after dissenting scientists who publish articles or give speeches questioning the global climate change hypothesis?

Will legislators who engage in blasphemy by refusing to recognize a scientific theory as fact and pass legislation to reduce carbon emissions be investigated, too?

The absurdity of this would be laughable if it were not so serious and so dangerous. The very idea that the FBI, the most powerful law enforcement agency in the United States, has had a referral from the attorney general of the United States to investigate whether those who disagree with the climate change theory meet the legal "criteria for which" the Justice Department "could take action" is evocative of Franz Kafka's chilling novel, "The Trial."

As I have noted before, this is also reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, where Joseph Stalin persecuted those whom he thought had the "wrong" scientific views on everything from linguistics to physics. Both Lynch and Whitehouse might want to read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book, "In the First Circle," in which he outlined the Soviet government's suppression of dissenting scientists and engineers.

Or perhaps General Lynch should review the Inquisition's persecution of Galileo Galilei for disagreeing with the consensus of his time and advocating the Copernican theory of the universe.

Level-headed, objective prosecutors should not be interested in investigating or prosecuting anyone over a scientific theory that is the subject of considerable debate. What Lynch should have said to Whitehouse is that the duty of the U.S. Justice Department (and the FBI) is to fairly enforce the laws of the United States in a dispassionate, nonideological manner based on the facts, not to investigate those who hold disfavored views regarding scientific controversies.

The fact that she did not do that, but instead has actually referred this issue to the FBI, should concern everyone who believes in the rule of law and fears the unbridled power of the government.

March 21, 2016

Another Thing Wrong with our Government Obama Wants 18% Pay Hike for Him, Ex-Presidents

Breaking News at Newsmax.com  http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-raise-pay-hike/2016/03/20/id/720028/#ixzz43XUoCZ31

Every one of these politicians that reach office in the Federal Government gets a pension and benefits for life. I ask you why we should pay them once their terms in office are over? They can get someone to write a book about them and get millions. The Clintons receive hundreds of thousands of dollar for speaking engagements. And yet we are expected to provide them with a mansion to live in and over $200,000 per year.

Oh, and Obama slipped another pay raise in addition to this one into last years budget.

What good does it do to vote these posers out of office if we still have to pay them once they are gone?

March 30, 2016

The problem is not the health insurance companies

It seems almost every day someone posts something about the evil health insurance companies and how their profits are to blame for the high cost of health care.

The health insurance companies are not the ones they should be pointing fingers at. Perhaps they should look at the United States government. Before Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and the government health insurance it brought with it, health insurance was reasonable if not cheap.

I was selling life and health insurance at the time that Medicare and Medicaid came into being. A family, husband, wife, and children could get full health coverage for about $135 per year. A stay in the hospital cost $12 per day. You will pay that much for an aspirin in the hospital today. A visit to your family doctor cost $5 without insurance. So what happened?

Before Medicare and Medicaid hospitals and doctors had to charge reasonable fees for them to get paid. But soon after enactment, they realized that they could charge any amount and the government would pay it. So their charges skyrocketed.

My company realized that they could no longer make a profit and so they discontinued selling health insurance. Many other companies followed suit, and so competition dwindled.

Today even though I have medicare advantage insurance, if I go into the hospital, my co-pay is $350 per day.

The government's involvement in the health insurance business has been a real boon, hasn't it?

April 25, 2016

How you can tell that Global Warming is a Hoax

Recently it has come to light that several states Attorney Generals have issued degrees making it illegal for people to speak out against man-made climate change. One would have to wonder why these so-called legal masterminds would try to squash our first amendment rights to free speech. The only logical explanation is that man-made global warming is a complete hoax with the intent to defraud the citizens of the United States out of their hard-earned money.

Otherwise, why try to silence their critics? If man-made climate change were real then surely the would not be afraid of dissenting opinions. Their facts should be able to withstand the criticism.

Throughout the world, those afraid that someone will speak the truth make it a crime to speak out against them. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, it is a crime punishable by possible death to speak against the royal family.

Hitler used similar tactics when he was setting up Nazi Germany.

Censorship in Nazi Germany was extreme and strictly enforced by the governing Nazi Party. It was implemented by the Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. All media—[literature, music, newspapers, and public events—were censored. Attempts were also made to censor private communications, such as mail and even private conversation, with mixed results.

The aim of censorship under the Nazi regime was simple: to reinforce Nazi power and to suppress opposing viewpoints and information. Punishments ranged from banning of presentation and publishing of works to deportation, imprisonment, or even execution in a concentration camp. Hitler outlined his theory of propaganda and censorship in Mein Kampf: _"The chief function of propaganda is to convince the masses, whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time so they may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on their mind._

Does the above statement remind you a little bit of Al Gore and his global warming fanatics? America wakes up before all of your freedoms have been taken away.

April 28, 2016

Trump Surprise

I believe that the vast majority of Americans do not like Donald Trump. I also think that many of those people are supporting him for the Republican nomination for president.

Therefore the question has to be why?

I think it is because both the democrat and republican parties have failed to do what is best for the American people. When the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency, they did nothing to curtail the massive spending that is perhaps the most dangerous thing facing our country. The Republicans promised that if they were elected that they would change that. But what happened? The debt has increased drastically since the Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress.

So obviously neither party cares for the American people. All they think about is how to stay on the gravy train.

So many people are looking outside the mainstream political system for answers. The only alternative that we have to the corrupt political machine known as the democrats and republicans is Donald Trump. He may turn out to be the worst president in history, but based on what we have had for the past eight years, I don't see that as a possibility.

April 30, 2016

The Disgusting Greed of Professional Baseball Players

As I write this, I am so angry that my hands are shaking.

On Thursday, my grandson, who goes to Amelia Grade School, came home and announced that he needed three dollars to take to school with him the next day. Come to find out it was payment so that he could see some of the Cincinnati Red Baseball players that were coming to visit the school. Any child that did not have the three dollars would be forced to go to another room to read or study.

I don't know why they needed three dollars, but if it was to pay these overpaid players to come to the school, I am outraged.

The least that any major league player makes is over a half-million dollars, and the average player makes over 4 million dollars. One would think that they could give a little something back to the community without expecting payment from eight-year-old little boys or their families

If it was to pay someone in the Cincinnati Red baseball organization to organize the event, it is just as bad. Think of the millions if not billions of dollars that this team sucks out of this community every year. Professional sports has reached a new low, in my opinion.

May 4, 2016

It's Trump or?

For all you folks that are saying NEVER TRUMP, I would like to remind you that all the other choices are so much worse.

I suppose you have in actuality four choices. First, you could stay home and not vote at all. More than likely that would help Hillary Clinton become president. Secondly, you could write in some other candidate who would have the same result as number one. Thirdly you could actually vote for Hillary making sure that she becomes the successor to Obama's agenda.

Anyone of the above choices will likely result in having a Supreme Court Justice that will vote to take away your second amendment rights. It will also result in the end of coal mining in this country and much higher prices for electricity. Oh and don't forget, $10 per gallon gas prices and a drastic rise in the cost of everything that has to be shipped by truck including groceries.

Or you could bite the bullet and vote for Donald Trump regardless of how you feel about the man personally.

Option four is the best chance for this country to survive.

May 17, 2016

Maybe Hillary is as perverted as Bill

I never could understand why Hillary Clinton stood beside Bill when it was apparent to everyone that he was a sexual predator. Then I thought she was just waiting for them to get out of the White House before filing for divorce. But that didn't happen so I figured that perhaps divorce would impede her own political ambitions.

But now when she is saying that she is going to give him a significant position in her administration, another thought strikes me.

Surely she would not give him a position of power so that he could use it to exploit more young women. And yet that is precisely what she is saying she is going to do.

Is it possible that Hillary is as perverted as her husband, and she enjoys seeing him exploit other women?

I can't think of any other reason for her actions.

May 19, 2016

Should Bill Clinton be fair game

The question has been raised recently if a spouse of a candidate for public office is fair game for criticism by that candidate's opponent. Usually my answer would be no. Leave the families out of the mud. However, in Bill Clinton's case, I believe that yes he is fair game since his wife has said she plans on giving him a significant role in her administration.

So Clinton's friendship with a known pedophile should be topic for discussion. It is incredible to me that his trips to orgy Island with Jeffery Epstein without secret service personnel accompanying him has not garnered closer scrutiny from the press. What possible reason could Clinton have had to ditch his secret service protection if he was not engaged in some illegal activity on those trips?

But the larger question is, do we really want someone in the White House that knows about that type of activity and still wants the perpetrator to have a major role in her administration?

I say a resounding no!

May 27, 2016

Liz and Hillary are making fools of themselves

I find it interesting that with all of the possible attacks against Donald Trump Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton choose to attack him for doing what he is supposed to do as a businessman.

They say that he is cruel and heartless for buying up property at rock bottom prices and then selling it when the market improved.

Let's forget for a minute the reports that the Clinton's made millions of dollars doing the same thing or that Bill Clinton was instrumental in creating the environment that caused the real estate bubble in the first place.

Donald Trump makes his living buying and selling real estate. He would be a fool not to buy at the lowest possible price and then re-sell it at the highest possible price. In short, he has nothing to apologize for in making money legally.

Hillary, on the other hand, should apologize for selling her influence when she was Secretary of State to foreign governments and individuals. While everyone seems to be concentrating on whether her email server was illegal, they should be concentrating on why she insisted on having a private server, to begin with. Yesterday she said that she needed something simple to use since she was too stupid to be able to use a laptop computer. Do we really want someone in the highest office with such poor communication skills? I assert that the motive was to hide her illegal activities while she was Secretary of State. Or is there another reason that the Saudi's and other mid-east countries donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation during her tenure in that office?

June 4, 2016

Mohammad Ali was not a hero

Several times this morning I have heard newscasters announce that a true American hero, Mohammad Ali, has died. Mohammad Ali was many things, but the one thing he was not was a hero. In general, sports stars are not heroes although the public worship them as if they were. If there ever were such a thing as a sports star being a hero, it would have been Ted Williams who gave up four of the best years of his career, not to dodge the draft as Ali did but to volunteer to go fight in World War II.

The things that Ali did in the ring, he did for his own glory and financial gain. That is not being a hero. A hero is firefighters who run into a burning building to save a life even though they know that they may lose their own life in the process. A hero is a policeman or policewoman who goes to work every day even though they realize that they may well not come home because some mad person may be waiting to take their life. A hero is any soldier, marine, airman, or sailor who serves their country so that those of us back home can be a little safer.

Mohammad Ali may well have been the greatest heavyweight fighter of all time, although I am sure that there are those that could argue that. But what he was not is an American hero.

June 9, 2016

Is the GOP morally bankrupt?

This morning I saw an article written by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman where he declared that the GOP is now morally bankrupt.

Of course, I find that hard to argue with since both parties have been morally bankrupt for the entire 72 years that I have been alive. However, I then found out what he was basing his premiss on. It seems that Friedman thinks the entire Republican party is morally bankrupt because some of them (not all of them mind you) still support Donald Trump after he had the audacity of calling into question the possible bias of a judge presiding over a lawsuit against him. Of course, he asserts that Trump is a racist because the judge in question is of Mexican descent. I seem to recall that is the same charge that the left has always leveled against anyone that dares to call into question anything that Barak Obama does.

Now let's forget for a moment that Mr. Friedman does not call the Democratic Party morally bankrupt when most of them (not all of them mind you) still support Hillary Clinton even though she is either directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of at least four of our citizens in Benghazi. Or that she committed multiple felonies in setting up and using a private email account to send and receive classified information. Or that that same email account was used to hide the fact that she was taking bribes from foreign governments and individuals for favorable treatment by the State Department when she was Secretary of State. But I digress.

Getting back to Trump suggesting that a judge might be biased, I see nothing wrong with a businessman using what he can to get justice from a corrupt legal system where everyone sues over anything, and everything and the only real winners are the lawyers. If the judge thinks a little longer because his decision might be construed as bias against Trump, then his calling the judge's impartiality into question was worth it.

I recall a time when I was accused by the City of Glendale Arizona of committing a felony zoning violation because I enclosed an outside patio and turned the space into what many would call an Arizona room. In a formal letter, I asked the female judge to recuse herself from the case and to grant a change of venue because I did not see how she could be impartial since she was being paid by the City that was charging me. Now, as you can imagine that request did not go very far. In fact, the judge even addressed the prosecuting attorney and asked her if she thought that she could be impartial. I was shocked (tongue in cheek) when the prosecutor agreed that this judge was the most unbiased person on the planet.

But although I did not get my change of venue, I have always believed that I received better treatment because I asked for the change of venue than I would have if I had sat quietly and said nothing. That small advantage may have made a difference in the outcome of the trial.

Now let's address what morally bankrupt might look like. A person or party that is morally bankrupt would be someone who believes in immoral things. So since Friedman thinks that the GOP is the more morally corrupt party, then they are the ones that probably are pushing for a woman's right to murder her unborn children. No, I looked that up, that is closer to the platform of the Democratic Party.

Well, then perhaps it is the GOP that sets up sanctuary cities for rapists and murders to stay in our country just because they happen to be illegal immigrants. Nope, I looked that one up as well, and it seems that the majority of those pushing for sanctuary cities are Democrats.

So maybe it is the Republicans that want to release the worst terrorists the world has ever seen back into society so that they can go back to beheading innocent men, women, and children. No again that is the position of Barak Obama and many of the Democrat party that supports him.

Again let me reiterate that I believe that both political parties are morally bankrupt but for Friedman to single out one side for something as inane as support for their presidential nominee in morally bankrupt.

June 13, 2016

Never argue politics or religion

I tried to find who authored the above quote without success this morning. It came to mind because I allowed myself to become involved in a discussion about religion yesterday. For much of my life, I had managed to avoid such discussions although there was a period in my life when I preached the word of God with all the vehemence of a television evangelist. I never believed that I had all the answers, but I thought that the religion I followed did. It was my opinion that the Elders were guided by the Holy Spirit, much as the Catholics believed that the Pope was infallible for the same reason. Obviously, since my religion and Catholicism were diametrically opposed in our beliefs, one or both of us must have been misinformed.

Now I must tell you that I have no doubt about the existence of God. The universe and the things in it are far too perfect to have happened by accident. I do however have my doubts about the accuracy of any organized religion. Now, don't get me wrong, much good is done in the name of religion. But on the other hand, many terrible things are done in that same name. For instance, during World War II Catholic priests in the United States were blessing the weapons of war that were created to kill people in Germany. At the same time, Catholic Priests in Germany were blessing the guns and bombs used to kill our soldiers. And from all accounts, both believed that God was listening to them.

During the Civil War, Methodist preachers in the North were preaching about how it was the duty of all young men to go off and kill their countrymen in the South. At the same time, Methodist preachers in the south were preaching that it was the duty of all young men to go and kill those damn Yankees. Now supposedly they both believed in the same God so how was it that they were so diametrically opposed on that subject?

And so that brings about the question, why does God allow these things to be done in his name? That question is apropos today when people are butchering innocent men, women, and children in the name of Allah. Would you not think that Allah would smite them for using his name to justify such atrocities?

So perhaps I have a disagreement with the God that I do believe in. Why does he allow such terrible things to take place? Why does he allow the terrible illnesses that have cropped up in the last 50 years, many of which are aimed at the most innocent among us, young children? Surely an all-seeing all-powerful God could whisper in some scientists ear the cure for these diseases. The scientist would simply go to sleep at night and wake up in the morning with the knowledge that if he just mixes strawberries with mint and feeds it to the populace that all diseases will be eradicated. So I have to wonder why does God not do that? Or perhaps he has, and the scientist decided to discard the idea because he could not make any money off of curing a disease, that there was more money to be made out of selling drugs that only masked the symptoms.

But I guess I digress. The original post that I foolishly decided to put in my two cents on was about heaven and getting there through the belief in Jesus Christ. I simply asked if that is the case where did all the people go when they died before Christ came to earth to give his sacrifice. Now honestly, I did not believe that anyone would give me an answer because unless you go back to God's original purpose for mankind, in Genesis, there is no answer to be found in the scriptures. But low and behold someone actually did find an article written by a man that claimed he knew the answer.

So again I reiterate, never argue religion as there is no way to win since all religion is made up of some man's opinion. Now some of you will say that is not true, that their religion is based on the Bible, and the Bible is the Word of God. And yet the Bible has been interpreted by millions of different people in different ways. That comes back to all religions are the opinions of man.

So in my attempt to show why you should never argue about religion, I have undoubtedly started another argument.

June 14, 2016

Ban the guns the left screams

It was bound to happen, another shooting another call from the liberals to ban the guns. The problem isn't that we have too many guns, the problem is that the right people do not have guns when they need them. The people (and I use that term loosely because they are not really people they are human garbage) that commit these crimes are cowards. They don't attack targets that offer any resistance, they pick on places they know they will not face any armed resistance. Some might argue that point in light of the coward that killed soldiers at Fort Hood, but keep in mind, he knew that those soldiers would not be armed because base regulations forbid the common soldier from carrying a weapon. So he could kill without fear for his own safety until some outside law enforcement group arrived. And when they did arrive he gave up.

This latest attack in Orlando was also a soft target. I guarantee you that was not the first time that coward had been inside that gay bar. He had done scouting trips before and knew that there would be no one else there that would be armed. If the bouncers had been armed, he would have passed that target by and looked for something easier. If the bartender had a gun strapped to his hip, he would have looked elsewhere.

I heard an idiot on Fox news last night say that the states with the laxest gun laws are the states with the highest gun violence. What tripe. Even if you count gun suicides, you will not come close to the number killed in Chicago or Detroit two places with some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

Is it any wonder that our schools are primary targets for the looney toons of the world. They are gun-free zones where the only people with a firearm are the nut cases that want to kill and maim innocent people.

Stop the gun control rhetoric. I would feel safer in a crowd where everyone had a gun than in a group where only one person had a gun.

June 16, 2016

72 Virgins

Muslims are motivated to terrorism because the Quran tells them that fighting non-believers is a duty of every Muslim and the only way to be certain of going to heaven to enjoy untold sensual pleasures is to die fighting in the cause of Allah.

If they can make it to heaven, one of the rewards all Muslims are promised is 72 virgins.

Okay, so one of my questions is why only 72 virgins. Why not a thousand or a million? I assume that the reason for being surrounded by virgins is to have sexual encounters with them. The problem is that once you have sex with a virgin she is no longer a virgin and I guess would no longer be worthy of being part of the reward for killing innocent men, women, and children. So a motivated cowardly martyr could go through his reward in a month or so. Then is he left all alone or is he now surrounded by 72 women that are less than worthy of his attention? That sounds more like hell than heaven to me.

So now my second question is, more and more women are strapping on the suicide vests and making their way out to blow up people that choose not to live under Sharia law. So is their reward also 72 virgins? Since homosexuality is deserving of death under Sharia law, I assume that their virgins would be male. But that brings up a conundrum as well. How does the female martyr know that these males are virgins? You know how men lie when it comes to trying to get a woman into the sack. I imagine it would be pretty easy for 72 males to fool a female martyr into thinking that they are virginal.

I don't think these radical Muslim terrorists have thought this thing through very well. Perhaps they would be better off trying to live peacefully with their neighbors instead of killing them to get a questionable reward.

July 1, 2016

A chance encounter?

Is anyone buying it was a chance encounter between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch? I suppose it is just a coincidence that she is the Attorney General who would be responsible for prosecuting his wife if the FBI decides to go against Barak Obama's instructions to back off.

Of course, if there was a bribe to be offered, the two of them could not be seen arranging a meeting to work out the details. But with all the traveling that government officials do, it would be quite easy to arrange a chance encounter at Sky Harbor International Airport. Then in a half-hour meeting behind closed doors with nobody listening they could conduct business and make sure that Hillary would come out smelling like a rose instead of the heap of dung she is.

Of course, right after that Lynch announced that she will abide by whatever decision is handed down by the FBI. Of course, she will, she knows that Bill has already arranged with our fearless leader to make sure that the FBI finds in favor of his partner in crime.

Shortly the FBI will release a statement that goes something like this, "While Secretary Clinton's actions might amount to poor decision making, they do not rise to the level of a criminal finding. Therefore this matter is closed."

Of course, the liberal left will lick their chops and brag that they knew their mob boss was innocent all along. And although many of us will not buy that load of crap, there will be nothing we can do about it as yet another corrupt politician takes the top office of the land.

July 2, 2016

Democrats attack the first amendment

 http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/286120-free-speech-threatened-in-democratic-platform

Even those of you that have always voted democratic should be a little bit afraid of taking a bite of this piece of the pie. The Democratic party has been trying to revoke the second amendment to the constitution for years, but in my wildest nightmares, I did not think they would get around to the first amendment as well.

I suggest that you read the article in its entirety (although I realize that most of you will not). So I will try to in as few words as possible to let you know the gist of the idea. It seems that the Democrats are going to insert into their platform an agreement to make it illegal for any energy company to assert that the burning of fossil fuels is not causing man-made global warming. They insist this is not an affront on the first amendment since the first amendment does not protect someone from committing fraud. And therein lies the rub. Since they believe that there is no doubt that man-made global warming exists, then it would be fraud for someone to disagree with that idea.

Even if you happen to agree with the assumption of man-made global warming, do you really want to criminalize those who do not? Of course, you might argue that this only applies to those vile, evil oil companies. How much of a stretch would it be to expand it to encompass everyone arguing against the idea of man-made global warming? Where does it end? Will you next make it against the law for someone to argue that life begins at conception because that violates your argument that abortion should be legal? Or perhaps you would like to outlaw those that do not believe in evolution. Or how about jailing everyone that thinks that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone?

Once you decide to take away someone's, anyone's freedoms, how safe are those beliefs that you hold dear. Think very carefully when you go into that voting booth, this fall. Ask yourself, do I really want to vote for a candidate that has signed off on the idea of taking away part of the first amendment to the constitution.

July 6, 2016

A Double Standard

As I wrote in this blog shortly after Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch had their secret rendezvous I knew that Hillary would not be prosecuted. That is because there are two sets of standards in this country, one for the rich and powerful and one for everyone else.

Most of you will agree with that, but a few will be skeptical. So consider this. If you or I were caught insider trading, we would go to jail. We would not pass go, and we would not collect $200. But it is not even illegal for members of Congress to insider trade. It is one of the perks of the job. Another instance: we the people are required to be covered under Obamacare. We are not given a choice in the matter. Buy the insurance or pay the penalty. Not so with members of Congress. They have a Cadillac plan. Of course, reasonable people would agree that no law should be passed by Congress that exempts their members but over and over again it happens.

Now we get to Hillary Clinton. It was apparent to almost everyone that she blatantly violated the law when she set up a private email server so that she could hide the bribes that she received for favors to foreign governments. Not so said the FBI director. He explained that although she was extremely careless in the handling of top-secret information, he could not lay a case for criminal prosecution. Never mind that being extremely careless in the handling of top-secret information is a criminal act. But towards the end, he told us all we need to know when he said that this decision was not to be construed as meaning that someone else doing the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances would not be prosecuted. That told us that there are two sets of standards, one for the Clintons and one for everyone else.

Now Comey should be investigated for accepting bribes from the Clinton Foundation.

July 9, 2016

The problem with political polls

A young man just knocked on my door and told me he was from the Republican party and wanted to ask me a few questions.

Question one: Are you satisfied with the way the country has been run under  
Barak Obama? My answer: I hate the way the country has been run under Obama. And then I thought perhaps hate is not a strong enough word, maybe abhor, detest or loath might be better. But as I watched him make a check mark on the paper, I knew that it would not have made any difference. It was a yes or no question, and the only thing he was concerned about was checking the correct response. When he goes up the street, and someone that is only slightly dissatisfied with the way the country is run gives him a shrug and says no it will carry the same weight as my answer.

Will you vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. I again expounded on my answer. "If those are my only choices, I will vote for Trump. However, I believe that Trump should drop out and let someone who can win go against Clinton." And again he put a check mark on the paper. So now if Trump sees this poll and enough other people say they will vote for him, he will be happy. And that is sad because almost anyone else would have a cakewalk win against Clinton. Because I believe she is the second most hated person in the United States. Unfortunately, the most hated person is Donald Trump. He stands no chance of winning the election but if he is my only alternative to lying Hillary I will vote for him. If the question were asked differently perhaps Trump would see and understand that he cannot win but anyone else in the Republican party would, he would do the honorable thing and drop out of the race now.

July 13, 2016

Of Guns and Changing Times

I have owned a firearm for most of my life. I got my first shotgun when I was 12 years old and have never been without a gun since. I have to tell you that I have never shot anyone either on purpose or by accident. My father taught me before I ever was allowed to pick up a gun about firearm safety. I did come close to having to use a gun to defend my home and family when I lived in Phoenix. A gang-banger came to my house in the middle of the night clearly looking for trouble. When he saw that I was armed and that I was determined to use the gun to defend my home, he left peacefully.

I was raised in a rural community in Western New York State. Almost every house had at least one gun, and most had several. You could walk into any hardware store and buy a shotgun or rifle without showing identification or going through a background check. And yet I never heard of one incident of gun violence when I was growing up. Even the two suicides that occurred were not the result of firearms. They were both hangings.

I don't remember any calls to disarm the populace back then. But now it seems that almost hourly someone is calling for taking guns away from the American people. The guns have changed over the years with more becoming semi-automatic weapons, but one thing that has not changed is that they still must be fired by someone to cause harm. So I don't think that it is the changing of the guns that is the problem but rather the changing of our attitudes toward human life that is the reason for so many mass killings. Violence is everywhere we look not only on network television shows but on the news. We murder millions of babies per year under the guise of a woman's right to choose, and politicians brag about their support for it. If even the most innocent among us are not protected, how can we expect people to hold other human life to be sacred?

Instead of disarming the populace, perhaps we should be going back to the time when we thought that all human life was precious.

July 19, 2016

Let's Make a Mountain Out of a Molehill

"Oh, my God. I believe that I may have plagiarized that tag line. "Egad" I fear that the beginning of that last sentenced has been used before as well. "Good Golly Mill Molly." I fear I may have done it again. But then, "there is nothing new under the sun." "Everything that can be said has been said before."

Is it any wonder that a few words of Melania Trump's speech last night might have been used before. The words that most are pointing to is where she said that her parents had instilled in her that her word was her bond. It is correct Michelle Obama used that in one of her speeches as well. So is that plagiarism? If so, then my father was a plagiarizer. For he told me roughly those exact same words. "And I will bet the farm," that many of your parents said the same thing to you.

There is one thing that I am positive of. Melania Trump was not trying to emulate Michelle Obama. For there was one line that Michelle Obama said that is unique and that no self-respecting American would ever repeat. She said, "For the first time in my life, I am proud to be an American." Those hateful, racist, bigoted words are hers and hers alone.

July 21, 2016

Do These Men have Principles?

That question is directed at John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and Ted Cruise. They all say that they are standing on their principles by not endorsing Donald Trump for president. Kasich cowardly even failed to show up to a convention held in his own state. Jeb Bush also failed to appear although that is not as bad as a sitting governor not appearing.

I watched Ted Cruise for about 30 minutes trying to defend his indefensible position of not supporting the Republican nominee. He kept deflecting the question about why he is not keeping his word. He and the others mentioned signed a pledge to support the Republican nominee, and then they reneged on their promise. I contend that makes them ineligible to expect anyone in the Republican party to ever vote for them for any office ever again.

Many people asked him why he was not honoring his pledge, and he carefully deflected all those questions trying to make it a matter of principle. But what they should have asked was why did you sign the pledge in the beginning. I submit that he signed it because he knew that he could not be elected if he appeared not to be a team player. I am sure that at the time he felt that there would be no way that the nominee would be Donald Trump. I suppose that is somewhat like a wife asking her husband what he wanted for dinner and have him answer, "Oh, whatever you fix will be wonderful." The wife then spends the rest of the day, trying to fix something special that will surprise her husband. He then comes in, turns up his nose and walks away from the table without eating.

His wife then approaches him and says, but you told me that you would eat whatever I fixed. "Yes," he replies, "but I had no idea you would fix that."

Or perhaps it is like a bunch of children playing "spin the bottle." Each one of them pledges to the rest that whomever the bottle ends up pointing at that they will kiss that person. But then the bottle points at a boy or girl that is not particularly good looking. They refuse to honor their pledge because they did not expect the bottle to come to a stop in that position.

These men are simply little boys that have no honor. If they did not want to sign the pledge, they should have refused to do so and accepted the consequences at the time. At least then no one could have accused them of being unprincipled.

23, 2016

An Open Letter to Donald Trump

Dear Mr. Trump,

Don't you get tired of shooting yourself in the foot? You had a marvelous convention where your children were a hit with almost everyone in America. Most people agreed that your wife's speech was a positive even though there was that little plagiarism problem. And your own speech resounded with most that heard it.

The one glitch (which was of your own making) was Ted Cruise speaking forever without endorsing you. But even that would have been a positive as even his Texas delegation labeled him a sore loser. If you had just stayed on message and stayed quiet about Cruise, you would have come out smelling like a rose. But you just could not stop yourself from grabbing defeat out of the jaws of victory. There is something in your personality that makes you reach for the self destruct button when there is no threat in sight.

It makes me wonder if you have no one in your campaign that you listen to or that dares to tell you when you are making a damn fool of yourself. Do you really think that again accusing Ted Cruise father of being involved in the assassination of President Kennedy was going to somehow win you votes? Ted Cruise is no longer the enemy. Hillary Clinton is the enemy that needs to be attacked. But now that you have made unfounded and unsupported claims about Cruise's father who will really listen to you when you go after Clinton?

So I guess I have to ask, Do you really want to be President? If the answer is yes, please get an adviser that will tell you to not put your mouth in motion until you have engaged your brain.

July 25, 2016

Surprise it's the Democrats that are the Bigots

It should not have taken a leak by Wikileaks for everyone to know that the Democrat Primary elections were rigged in Hillary Clinton's favor. One only had to look back to the beginning of the primary season where Sanders won the Iowa caucuses, but Clinton walked away with the majority of the delegates.

What may be a surprise to some is the way that the Democrats sought to undermine Sander's chances. By labeling him a Jew or better yet an Atheist. It didn't matter which as they were sure that in either instance, the Baptists would not support him. And while Debbie Wasserman Schultz will be the scapegoat it was DNC CFO Brad Marshall that suggested the plan in the first place, and he is not under any kind of pressure to resign. It just proves that they are not serious about solving the overall problem. They just want to whitewash it.

At least of a little while the press had to admit it was the democrats that were the bigots.

July 25, 2016

An open letter to Bernie Sanders supporters

Now that you know that what you suspected all along that your candidate was cheated out of the Democratic nomination by a corrupt system is a fact, where do you go now? Can you still vote for the woman who ultimately was behind the fraud (not Debbie Wasserman Schultz but Hillary Rotten Clinton)?

Of course, there are those in the democratic party that is trying to deflect the blame back to the Republicans with the asinine accusation that these emails were leaked by Russia to aid Donald Trump. But consider this, is that as important as the fact that the democratic party deliberately tried to sideline your candidate before he even got started. Is that the type of behavior that you want to reward by voting for their chosen candidate? I go along with those chanting in the DNC hall. "Hell, no DNC we won't vote for Hillary."

And don't forget that even with this deliberate attack on your man, he still might have won if the democratic party had counted the millions of his votes that they found a way to destroy.

July 26, 2016

Scott Pelley and Lying Hillary Clinton

Scott Pelley said Hillary Clinton "seemed genuinely surprised" when the CBS anchor brought up the Wikileaks hack of the Democratic National Committee in their interview for _60 Minutes_ broadcast Sunday.

Pelley joined _CBS This Morning_ Monday to promote the interview, and co-host Norah O'Donnell brought up an unaired portion of the interview. "The specific part of your interview that is drawing interest this morning is her answer to the DNC email scandal, she acted like she was not familiar with what was going on," said O'Donnell.

Pelley claimed Clinton looked "surprised" by his question. "I got to tell you if I'm any reader of body language, I've known Secretary Clinton for 25 years, and I was struck, as I was reading the emails to her in the interview, her eyes widened as if to say, what is this about? What are you talking about? She seemed genuinely surprised," Pelley said.

Once again a member of the press does his part to cover up a scandal surrounding Lying Hillary Clinton. First of all, if he has known her for 25 years as he claims, he knows that she is a world-class liar. Surely someone that has told more lies than Satan the Devil would be able to look shocked when confronted with something she does not want anyone to suspect she was a part of.

But I am sure he knew what he was saying was nearly as big a lie as the one Hillary espoused. I am quite sure that she would not go on a so-called news show without being fed the questions in advance so that she could cut off anything that might be damaging to her. That is why she does so few news conferences. With Pelley or any of his so-called new people, she can control the narrative. She is quite sure that she can lie her way out of any situation because she has done it so many times in the past. But she also knows that it is easier to lie her way out of a corner if she knows what put her there in advance. In a news conference, even though all those in attendance have been warned not to cast her in a poor light, there is always the possibility that someone might actually want to get at the truth instead of just continuing to perpetuate the myth of "Honest Abe" Hillary.

Of course, any "reporter" that does try to buck the trend will have to pay the price. The Clintons always get even with those that do not toe the line.

If you don't believe me just ask Mary Mahoney, Vincent Foster, Paul Tulley, Ed Willey, or Herschell Friday. Oh wait you can't they are all dead along with eight of Clinton's former bodyguards, 10 potential witnesses against the Clinton's and two people investigating government corruption.

Is it any wonder that so many so-called reporters kiss Hillary's backside?

July 27, 2016

Black Lives Matter and Hillary Clinton

Over 30 police officers gunned down in the line of duty this year. 11 in two days. Outside the DNC Black lives matter was parading up and down the street chanting "What do we want, dead cops. When do we want them now." And inside the convention hall, people were parading to the platform to tell America that Hillary Clinton supports Black Lives Matter.

Is this really the woman you want in the White House? How many police officers have to die until America wakes up?

July 27, 2016

I am so tired of the stupid press

Today Donald Trump held a press conference. In it, he was talking about the conjecture that Russia was behind the hacking of the DNC's emails revealing that the democratic election process was rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton. He said that he had no way of knowing if there was any credibility to that claim. And then tongue in cheek he added, "maybe Russia can find the 30,000 emails that Hillary destroyed".

The mainline news media immediately went ballistic, saying that Trump had committed an act of treason by asking a foreign government to hack Hillary's email server. What a bunch of hogwash. And the sad part is that the press knew that they were blowing a joke way out of proportion. How do I know that they knew what they were saying was a lie. Because he could not have been suggesting that Russia hack Hillary's email server. She had already destroyed the server and did such an excellent job of it that even the FBI could not recover much from it.

Wake up America the Democrats have nothing concrete to say so they have to make up garbage. They figure that if they throw enough shit against the wall that some it may stick.

July 28, 2016

An open letter to Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and anyone else that supports Black Lives Matter

I am filled with disgust every time I see a news clip of Black Lives Matter chanting that they want people to kill police officers. If you or they are really concerned about the violence against young black men, you and they should be chanting "What do we want, dead gangbangers, when do we want it now." For far more young black men are killed by other young black men every day than are killed by police in any 10 years.

So I wonder why are you falsely blaming the police instead of putting the blame squarely where it belongs, on the black communities that allow gangs to run amok in their streets and do nothing to support the police when they try to shut them down? Is it perhaps because you can rant against the police without fearing retribution, but you know that if you stand up against the gangs, many of which members have the same skin color as your own they may kill you even though you are related to some of them.

Okay, now it is time for someone to bring out the old tired refrain, "But you don't know what it is like to be black in this country."

And of course you are right, I don't. For I am not the president of the United States, The Ambassador to the United Nations, The Attorney General of the United States, or a supreme court justice. Also we have black lawyers, black doctors, black scholars, black teachers, black engineers, and black anything else that they want to be. And because of affirmative action, blacks can achieve those posts far easier than whites can.

Now just so you know, I do believe that black lives matter. I also think that red lives matter, yellow lives matter, white lives matter, and most importantly, blue lives matter. Instead of being part of the problem by marching and chanting hate-filled expressions, please get involved in the black communities to fix the real problem, gangs.

July 29, 2016

An easy choice

Never before in my lifetime have I seen such an easy choice when voting for president of the United States. You don't have to think about the candidates. You don't have to worry about electing crooked Hillary or crazy Donald. For those things do not matter in the long run. Of course, some of you Bernie Sander's fans may be a little peeved because your candidate was cheated out of the nomination (which he was). But even that is not important because you cannot do anything about it.

When you are deciding who to vote for in November, all you have to do is ask yourself a few easy to answer questions from your own experience.

Question One: Is the country on the right or wrong track. If you believe it is on the wrong track then you must vote for Trump. If you think it is on the right track, you must vote for Clinton. Hillary has already made it plain that she believes that there is nothing wrong with America now, and she plans to continue on the same path that Obama has taken us for the past eight years.

Question Two: Do you believe that our country is safer now than it was eight years ago? If yes then Clinton is your choice. For once again, she believes in the same open border policy announced by our present president. She even wants to expand it and bring even more refugees from the middle east than Obama has proposed.

Question Three: Do you believe that it is alright for our country to be nearly 20 trillion dollars in debt. If so again your choice is clear, Clinton.

Question Four: Do you believe that health care is less expensive now than before Obamacare? If so again Clinton is your choice.

Question Five: Do you want more of the same of what you have had under Obama? If the answer is no, then the choice is simple, vote for Trump.

Question Six: Do you believe that it right for people to openly kill police officers. Both Obama and Clinton support Black Lives Matter, the group publicly calling for the killing of police officers. Donald Trump is for law and order.

Clinton is for the status quo, Trump is for real change.

July 31, 2016

Disgust with politics

I am totally and utterly disgusted with the state of politics in this country. Every political cycle seems to be worse than the one before. Of course, I have come to expect the lies told by both sides. It is a fact that nobody has ever been elected to a political office by telling the truth. It is paramount that a person seeking office portray him or herself in the best possible light while smearing their opponent with the most muck that they can find. It doesn't matter if what they say is the truth or not as long as they don't get caught in the lie before the election. That was proved out in the last presidential election when Harry Reid, just before election day claimed that Mitt Romney had not paid his taxes in years. There wasn't enough time to disprove the claim and Romney lost the election. After it was over a reporter confronted Reid with the truth. His response, so what it worked didn't it?

But the use of dead soldier's parents to attack the opposition is, in my opinion, the lowest form of politics. Even when the parents of the Benghazi attack were used by the Republicans I thought it was completely wrong even though there was at least a grain of truth that Hillary Clinton was responsible for their children's death. It is documented fact that Chris Stevens asked for and was denied extra security. Whether that was by Clinton's direction or not, I am not sure, but she was ultimately the one responsible for making sure that our Ambassador was adequately protected.

But this last attempt to use a parent of a dead Muslim soldier to cast Trump in a bad light is totally ridiculous. Trump had nothing to do with this man's son's death. And to accuse Trump of not understanding the Constitution of the United States because he wants to limit the number of people coming in from Muslim countries is outrageous. Our constitution does not guarantee any foreign person the right to enter this country. And to point out that if Trump had his way, this man's son would not have been in this country to fight and die for us carries little sensible weight. For using the same logic then many on the following list of people that were here to kill our citizens would not have been here as well.

1972.04.14 | USA | New York, NY | 1 | 3 | Ten members of a local mosque phone in a false alarm and then ambush responding officers, killing one.

---|---|---|---|---|---

1973.01.19 | USA | Brooklyn, NY | 1 | 1 | Muslim extremists rob a sporting goods store for weapons, gunning down a police officer who responds to the alarm.

1973.07.01 | USA | Bethesda, MD | 1 | 0 | An Israeli diplomat is gunned down in his driveway by Palestinian terrorists.

1973.07.18 | USA | Washington, DC | 8 | 2 | Nation of Islam members shoot seven members of a family to death in cold blood, including four children. A defendant in the case is later murdered in prison on orders from Elijah Muhammad.

1973.10.19 | USA | Oakland, CA | 1 | 1 | Nation of Islam terrorists kidnap a couple and nearly decapitate the man, while raping and leaving the woman for dead.

1973.10.29 | USA | Berkeley, CA | 1 | 0 | A woman is shot repeatedly in the face by Nation of Islam terrorists.

1973.11.25 | USA | Oakland, CA | 1 | 0 | A grocer is killed in his store by Nation of Islam terrorists.

1973.12.11 | USA | Oakland, CA | 1 | 0 | A man is killed by Nation of Islam terrorists while using a phone booth.

1973.12.13 | USA | Oakland, CA | 1 | 0 | A woman is shot to death on the sidewalk by Nation of Islam terrorists.

1973.12.20 | USA | Oakland, CA | 1 | 0 | Nation of Islam terrorists gun down an 81-year-old janitor.

1973.12.22 | USA | Oakland, CA | 2 | 0 | Nation of Islam terrorist kills two people in separate attacks on the same day.

1973.12.24 | USA | Oakland, CA | 1 | 0 | A man is kidnapped, tortured and decapitated by Nation of Islam terrorists.

1974.01.24 | USA | Oakland, CA | 4 | 1 | Five vicious shooting attacks by Nation of Islam terrorists leave three people dead and one paralyzed for life. Three of the victims were women.

1974.04.01 | USA | Oakland, CA | 1 | 1 | A Nation of Islam terrorist shoots at two Salvation Army members, killing a man and injuring a woman.

1974.04.16 | USA | Ingleside, CA | 1 | 0 | A man is killed while helping a friend move by Nation of Islam terrorists.

1977.03.09 | USA | Washington, DC | 1 | 1 | Hanifi Muslims storm three buildings including a B'nai B'rith to hold 134 people hostage. At least two innocents were shot and one died.

1980.07.22 | USA | Bethesda, MD | 1 | 0 | A political dissident is shot and killed in front of his home by an Iranian agent who was an American convert to Islam.

1980.08.31 | USA | Savou, IL | 2 | 0 | An Iranian student guns down his next-door neighbors, a husband and wife.

1989.11.06 | USA | St. Louis, MO | 1 | 0 | A 17-year-old girl is stabbed to death by her parents for bringing 'dishonor' to their family by dating an 'infidel' African-American.

1990.01.31 | USA | Tuscon, AZ | 1 | 0 | A Sunni cleric is assassinated in front of a Tuscon mosque after declaring that two verses of the Qur'an were invalid.

1990.11.05 | USA | New York City, NY | 1 | 0 | An Israeli rabbi is shot to death by a Muslim attacker at a hotel.

1993.01.25 | USA | Langley, VA | 2 | 3 | A Pakistani with Mujahideen ties guns down two CIA agents outside of the headquarters.

1993.02.26 | USA | New York, NY | 6 | 1040 | Islamic terrorists detonate a massive truck bomb under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring over 1,000 in an effort to collapse the towers.

1994.03.01 | USA | Brooklyn, NY | 1 | 0 | A Muslim gunman targets a van packed with Jewish boys, killing a 16-year-old.

1997.03.23 | USA | New York, NY | 1 | 6 | A Palestinian leaves an anti-Jewish suicide note behind and travels to the top of the Empire State building where he shoot seven people in a Fedayeen attack.

1997.04.03 | USA | Lompoc, CA | 1 | 0 | A prison guard is stabbed to death by a radical Muslim.

2000.03.17 | USA | Atlanta, GA | 1 | 1 | A local imam and Muslim spiritual leader guns down a deputy sheriff and injures his partner.

2001.09.11 | USA | New York, NY | 2752 | 251 | Islamic hijackers steer two planes packed with fuel and passengers into the World Trade Center, killing hundreds on impact and eventually killing thousands when the towers collapsed. At least 200 are seriously injured.

2001.09.11 | USA | Washington, DC | 184 | 53 | Nearly 200 people are killed when Islamic hijackers steer a plane full of people into the Pentagon.

2001.09.11 | USA | Shanksville, PA | 40 | 0 | Forty passengers are killed after Islamic radicals hijack the plane in an attempt to steer it into the U.S. Capitol building.

2002.03.19 | USA | Tuscon, AZ | 1 | 0 | A 60-year-old man is gunned down by Muslim snipers on a golf course.

2002.05.27 | USA | Denton, TX | 1 | 0 | Muslim snipers kill a man as he works in his yard.

2002.07.04 | USA | Los Angeles, CA | 2 | 0 | Muslim man pulls out a gun at the counter of an Israeli airline and kills two people.

2002.09.21 | USA | Atlanta, GA | 1 | 0 | Muslim terrorists gun down an employee at a liquor store.

2002.09.21 | USA | Montgomery, AL | 1 | 1 | Muslim snipers shoot two women, killing one.

2002.09.23 | USA | Baton Rouge, LA | 1 | 0 | A Korean mother is shot in the back by Muslim snipers.

2002.10.02 | USA | Wheaton, MD | 1 | 0 | Muslim snipers gun down a program analyst in a store parking lot.

2002.10.03 | USA | Montgomery County, MD | 5 | 0 | Muslim snipers kill three men and two women in separate attacks over a 15-hour period.

2002.10.09 | USA | Manassas, VA | 1 | 1 | A man is killed by Muslim snipers while pumping gas two days after a 13-year-old is wounded by the same team.

2002.10.11 | USA | Fredericksburg, VA | 1 | 0 | Another man is killed by Muslim snipers while pumping gas.

2002.10.14 | USA | Arlington, VA | 1 | 0 | A woman is killed by Muslim snipers in a Home Depot parking lot.

2002.10.22 | USA | Aspen Hill, MD | 1 | 0 | A bus driver is killed by Muslim snipers.

2003.08.06 | USA | Houston, TX | 1 | 0 | After undergoing a 'religious revival', a Saudi college student slashes the throat of a Jewish student with a 4″ butterfly knife, nearly decapitating the young man.

2004.04.15 | USA | Scottsville, NY | 1 | 2 | In an honor killing, a Muslim father kills his wife and attacks his two daughters with a knife and hammer because he feared that they had been sexually molested.

2006.06.16 | USA | Baltimore, MD | 1 | 0 | A 62-year-old Jewish moviegoer is shot to death by a Muslim medical student in an unprovoked terror attack.

2006.06.25 | USA | Denver, CO | 1 | 5 | Saying that it was 'Allah's choice', a Muslim shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer.

2006.07.28 | USA | Seattle, WA | 1 | 5 | An 'angry' Muslim-American uses a young girl as hostage to enter a local Jewish center, where he shoots six women, one of whom dies.

2008.01.01 | USA | Irving, TX | 2 | 0 | A Muslim immigrant shoots his two daughters to death on concerns about their 'Western' lifestyle.

2008.07.06 | USA | Jonesboro, GA | 1 | 0 | A devout Muslim strangles his 25-year-old daughter in an honor killing.

2009.02.12 | USA | Buffalo, NY | 1 | 0 | The founder of a Muslim TV station beheads his wife in the hallway for seeking a divorce.

2009.04.12 | USA | Phoenix, AZ | 2 | 0 | A man shoots his brother-in-law and another man to death after finding out that they visited a strip club, in contradiction to Islamic values.

2009.06.01 | USA | Little Rock, AR | 1 | 1 | A Muslim shoots a local soldier to death inside a recruiting center explicitly in the name of Allah.

2009.11.02 | USA | Glendale, AZ | 1 | 1 | A woman dies from injuries suffered when her father runs her down with a car for being too 'Westernized.' (10-20-09)

2009.11.05 | USA | Ft. Hood, TX | 13 | 31 | A Muslim psychiatrist guns down thirteen unarmed soldiers while yelling praises to Allah.

2009.12.04 | USA | Binghamton, NY | 1 | 0 | A non-Muslim Islamic studies professor is stabbed to death by a Muslim grad student in revenge for 'persecuted' Muslims.

2010.04.14 | USA | Marquette Park, IL | 5 | 2 | After quarrelling with his wife over Islamic dress, a Muslim convert shoots his family members to 'take them back to Allah' and out of the 'world of sinners'.

2011.04.30 | USA | Warren, MI | 1 | 0 | A 20-year-old woman is shot in the head by her stepfather for not adhering to Islamic practices.

2011.09.11 | USA | Waltham, MA | 3 | 0 | Three Jewish men have their throats slashed by Muslim terrorists.

2012.01.15 | USA | Houston, TX | 1 | 0 | A 30-year-old Christian convert is shot to death by a devout Muslim for helping to convert his daughter.

2012.11.12 | USA | Houston, TX | 1 | 0 | A 28-year-old American man is shot to death by a conservative Muslim over an alleged role in converting a woman to Christianity.

2013.02.07 | USA | Buena Vista, NJ | 2 | 0 | A Muslim targets and beheads two Christian Coptic immigrants.

2013.03.24 | USA | Ashtabula, OH | 1 | 0 | A Muslim convert walks into a church service with a Quran and guns down his Christian father while praising Allah.

2013.04.15 | USA | Boston, MA | 3 | 264 | Foreign-born Muslims describing themselves as 'very religious' detonate two bombs packed with ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and causing several more to lose limbs.

2013.04.19 | USA | Boston, MA | 1 | 1 | Jihadists gun down a university police officer sitting in his car.

2013.08.04 | USA | Richmond, CA | 1 | 0 | A convert "on a mission from Allah" stabs a store clerk to death.

2014.03.06 | USA | Port Bolivar, TX | 2 | 0 | A Muslim man shoots his lesbian daughter and her lover to death and leaves a copy of the Quran open to a page condemning homosexuality.

2014.04.27 | USA | Skyway, WA | 1 | 0 | A 30-year-old man is murdered by a Muslim fanatic.

2014.06.01 | USA | Seattle, WA | 2 | 0 | Two homosexuals are murdered by an Islamic extremist.

2014.06.25 | USA | West Orange, NJ | 1 | 0 | A 19-year-old college student is shot to death 'in revenge' for Muslim deaths overseas.

2014.09.25 | USA | Moore, OK | 1 | 1 | A Sharia advocate beheads a woman after calling for Islamic terror and posting an Islamist beheading photo.

2014.12.18 | USA | Morganton, NC | 1 | 0 | A 74-year-old man is shot several times in the head by a 'radicalized' ISIS supporter.

2015.07.16 | USA | Chattanooga, TN | 5 | 2 | A 'devout Muslim' stages a suicide attack on a recruiting center at a strip mall and a naval center which leaves five dead.

2015.12.02 | USA | San Bernardino, CA | 14 | 17 | A 'very religious' Muslim shoots up a Christmas party with his wife, leaving fourteen dead.

2016.06.13 | USA | Orlando, FL | 49 | 53 | An Islamic extremist massacres forty-nine people at a gay nightclub.

August 2, 2016

We are in Grave Danger

Not since the election of 1860 has this country faced such a terrifying danger from an election. At that time the country stood on the precipice of a Civil War. Whether the country would remain one or end up divided was in the balance.

Today that choice pales in comparison with what will happen to our country after the November elections. This election is not about what will happen in the next four years. It is not about who will occupy the White House for the next four years. But instead it is about who will sit on the Supreme Court for perhaps the next forty years. With the death of Anton Scalia, the court is presently split between four conservative justices and four liberal justices. And there is some question about how conservative John Roberts is.

The next president will break that tie. But that is not all that is at stake. Clarence Thomas has already announced that he will retire. That means that the next president will appoint at least two justices to the court. If it is Hillary Clinton, the court will then be six liberals to three conservatives, and every freedom that we hold dear will be gone. No one can doubt that with Clinton in the White House and a Liberal court, our right to bear arms will be taken from us. She has already said that she will limit the right to bear arms by executive order. Before Scalia's death, that order would not have stood. But with two more liberal justices on the court, no challenge to those types of orders would be upheld.

Clinton is also in favor of limiting the right to free speech. She wants laws passed that would make it a felony for anyone to speak out against the government's efforts to limit the use of fossil fuels. With a 6-3 liberal court, those types of laws are bound to be found to be constitutional.

And once that happens is it really a stretch to see laws against any form of speech that criticizes Her Majesty, Hillary. Surely no one would ever again be able to point out that she was taking bribes as part of her office.

Your right to practice your religion as you see fit will also disappear if you happen to believe that abortion is murder. Already the court has upheld some of the ridiculous requirements in The Affordable Care Act that mandate a business to provide abortion drugs in their health insurance plans. And those decisions happened while Scalia was still alive. Just imagine how much worse it will be with a 6-3 liberal court.

And it is not just the Court that frightens me. Clinton has also said she intends to allow thousands of immigrants from middle east countries to enter our country. It does not take much of a stretch of the imagination to see scenes like what happened in Orlando all over the country. Radical Islamists will be in every state in the Union killing with impunity. And remember you will no longer have firearms for your own protection. How long do you think it will be before you are living under Sharia Law?

Please America, wake up before you elect another liberal as President. We cannot survive four years of Hillary Clinton and especially not forty years of the liberal Court she will appoint.

August 4, 2016

I don't understand Fox News

Yesterday in a speech Hillary Clinton emphatically said that she would raise taxes on the middle class. And get this her stupid audience applauded that statement apparently because they are told to applaud anything that she says.

Now if that was Trump saying something that stupid the press would jump all over it and it would be front-page news on every newspaper in the country. So you would think that the only conservative news channel, Fox News would jump on this story and expand it. Not so, they have spent the entire morning today apologizing for what Clinton said. "We assume that she meant that she would not raise taxes on the middle class." They say.

Dear Lord, doesn't she have enough liberal press to keep her safe from herself? She said what she said. Just like when she said she would put the coal miners out of business and then the press allowed her to walk that back. But her green agenda clearly shows that she does intend to destroy the coal industry. Now perhaps she will try to walk back that statement about raising taxes on the middle class but how else will she pay for her "free college education" for everyone.

Come on Fox News for once take someone at their word. She is going to raise taxes on the middle class.

August 6, 2016

Heard on Facebook, Never talk about politics

This morning a woman posted a comment on Facebook that a friend had unfriended her because of her political views. My response was that friends do not abandon friends over their political views. But I can also empathize with her since not too long ago a young man that used to work for me when I was the district manager of a company called Wireless Advocates unfriended me because of my political views. Now understand that I never called him names or questioned his right to his democrat leaning views. But I did respond many times to his posts. I guess he finally got tired of having to defend himself and decided that I was not worth the effort.

But folks consider this. If we never discussed politics, how would our republic wor? You notice that I did not say our democracy since we are not a democracy. Our forefathers felt that the ordinary person was too dumb to directly govern themselves. So we have a system where we elect people to pass legislation which is supposed to be in our best interest. Supposedly if we disagree with the laws, they enact we have the right to some checks and balances. First, we could toss them out of office at the next election. If the laws are bad enough, we could take the matter to court and eventually to the Supreme Court. At that time, the justices are supposed to rule on whether the law meets the requirements under the constitution.

But all of that is a confrontational system. If we never discuss politics, how would we ever get our ideas across? We would be at the mercy of the corrupt electorate. For there is no doubt in my mind that anyone that is elected to a high office is corrupt. But that does not mean that we should not speak out against their lawlessness.

I have noticed that the vast majority of people ignore my political comments. But just maybe if I continue to speak my mind, someone will join my crusade against the corruption in our government.

August 7, 2016

Is Trump Receiving Death Threats?

Yogi Berra once said, "It seems like Dejavous all over again." Now, as I look back on what is happening in the Presidential Election cycle, I have that exact same feeling.

The year was 1992, and another outsider, another businessman had thrown his hat into the political ring and was challenging the mainstream elitists for the presidency of the United States. His name was Ross Perot, and his message was eerily similar to what Donald Trump has been saying this year. Perot believed that we must close up our borders and reign in trade deals such as NAFTA as they would pull more American jobs south of the border. And his message was resonating with the populace. In some polls, he was shown to be the favorite of about 30% of voters. And although few people predicted he would win he was shown to be hurting the Democrat candidate, Bill Clinton more than the Republican candidate George H. W. Bush.

And then without warning, he dropped out of the race, saying that his family had been receiving death threats. I thought that strange at the time since surely the Secret Service would be able to provide protection. But I did not know how many people that had bucked the Clintons had turned up dead in suspicious circumstances. He later reentered the race but never again was a severe threat to Slick Willy.

Now all these years later, another outsider came to challenge the elite politicians. Nobody thought that Donald Trump had any chance of winning and so he was pretty much left alone by the left who were rejoicing over such a putz eliminating some of what they perceived to be the real threats. But then the unthinkable happened, Donald Trump won the GOP nomination. And that was when things went all Deja Vous again.

First, his wife's speech was sabotaged, and Trump did not seem to be distraught over that fact. Then for no good reason, Trump allowed Ted Cruise to speak for an inordinate amount of time without giving him an endorsement. But even those things would not have been so bad if he had just not spoken about them. But people said he just couldn't help himself. And even I said that I thought he couldn't help but reach for the self destruct button when there was no perceived danger. But now I am wondering if perhaps there was a perceived danger. I am wondering if maybe he too, like Ross Perot was receiving death threats to him or his family. Was he told to make sure that he threw the election or what happened to over 90 others that had bucked the Clinton's would happen to him or his family?

They couldn't force him to drop out of the election as they had Ross Perot so many years before as surely that would have attracted more attention than even Slick Willy and Crooked Hillary could stand. But if he just self-destructed she would win the election and nobody would be any wiser.

If only James Comey had dared to tell the real truth about the investigation into Hillary's emails, perhaps we would not be at the point where one corrupt family could control an election with threats and murder. But he too knew the dangers of bucking the Clinton's.

We still have the one hope left, that Wikileaks will find enough dirt to bury Hillary before it is too late.

August 8, 2016

America's Choices

As I ponder this election cycle, I cannot help but look back to a time before there was the United States of America, the second half of the 18th century. For at that time, the men and women of what was to become our country were faced with a very similar situation as we find ourselves today.

They could choose to side with royalty, the King of England, or they could throw their support to a bunch of absolute lunatics. For undoubtedly this bunch or rabble led by Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Paul Revere, and others were mad beyond description. For these nut cases actually believed that they could go up against the might of the British Empire whose military might was unmatched by any country in the world. What were there lunatics thinking, suggesting that they wanted to leave the safety and security of the King for an unknown and untried system of government?

Today we are faced with a similar choice. We can stay with what we have known for many years, the status quo, a government which is fraught with corruption. A government that remains in power by taking money from one group of people and giving a small portion of that money to another group of people. The vast majority of that money goes into their own pockets. That choice is to stay with the royalty of American politics, the queen Hillary Clinton.

Or we can take a huge gamble, one similar to what the colonists faced, we can go with what many perceive to be an absolute lunatic, Donald Trump. This man like some of our forefathers is so crazy that he believes he can buck the system. A system that has chewed up some of the best people in our history and swallowed them whole. A system that kills even presidents when they do not tow the party line. Perhaps that is what happened to Abraham Lincoln when he tried to go against the elite who wanted to steal everything that the South owned after the Civil War. Or perhaps that is what happened to John F. Kennedy when he wanted to end the war in Viet Nam, a move that would have cost powerful people loads of money they were making off of arm's deals.

But in my opinion, the unknown is far better than what we have been fed by the major political parties for most of my lifetime. Had the colonists stayed with the safe choice, perhaps we would have been better off. Maybe we would never have had to fight a Civil War. Perhaps everything would have come up rosy. But one thing we would not have enjoyed was freedom. And now many of those freedoms are again threatened by the status quo. For if we stay with the known course, for that is what Hillary Clinton, promises us, we will lose our freedom a little at a time. She will erode the first amendment in her goal of limiting speech against the government's stand on global warming. She will eventually destroy the second amendment by taking away a citizen's right to bear arms. Oh, not all at once perhaps but she is constantly speaking out against peoples right to own what she calls "weapons of war." These so-called "weapons of war" are any rifle or handgun that fires one round every time someone pulls the trigger. Guns that we refer to as semi-automatic weapons. A great many people own such weapons. They are used for hunting, target practice, and when necessary personal protection.

She will also make abortion on demand the law of the land. She has just stated that an unborn child has no right to life. In 2012 699,202 unborn babies were murdered in the United States and if Hillary gets her way millions more will be murdered during her term as president.

Surely we do not know what the effect of our vote will be this fall. We have some choices to make, 1: vote for the status quo, 2: stay home and let someone else make the tough decisions, 3: vote for a third party candidate (if you decide to do that please write my name down when you go into the voting booth) or 4: vote for a lunatic.

As one of those lunatics in 1775 said, "I know not what others may choose, but as for me give me liberty or give me death." Patrick Henry.

August 10, 2016

Another mountain out of a molehill involving Trump

Yesterday at a news conference Trump mentioned the danger in electing Hillary Clinton. He said that she intends to take away your second amendment rights and if she appoints two or three more liberal justices, there is nothing you can do about it. He then added I don't know maybe the second amendment people can do something about it.

The liberal news immediately picked this up to mean that Trump was asking for an armed revolution, something he did not even consider. How do I know? Rudy Guiliani was with him at the time, and neither of them had any idea that anything was amiss until much later at the airport. Then they saw the outrage that a simple comment had caused. Guiliani said that Trump was shocked that anyone would take his comment to mean he was asking for armed intervention.

Hillary can say anything, including that she intends to raise taxes on the middle class and nothing is even mentioned. But no matter what Trump says, someone will blow it completely out of proportion.

August 14, 2016

Professional Golfers are Pansies

I know I have railed on this before, but today I was watching the Olympics and the final round golf match. Before almost every shot someone, an official or a caddy would say quietly in the gallery or no cameras, please. And of course this is not an unusual happening. Now I don't know how much these spectators had to pay to get into the venue, but I imagine over a thousand dollars.

For that amount of money, you would expect that you could comment on the action or perhaps take a picture. I can hear the outrage from you golfers. You have to understand the difficulty these shots are. Okay so let me get this straight. A person stands over an unmoving white ball, trying to hit it to a spot somewhere in a fairway that is 20 to 50 yards wide and you have to have total quiet to be able to do that.

Let's compare that with a baseball player trying to hit a ball that is coming at him at speeds nearing 100 miles per hour that is thrown from 60 feet 6 inches. And that ball is not coming in a straight line. It may move in towards him, out away from him or straight down at the last moment. He has less than half a second to make up his mind to swing or hold up. And all this time the crowd is screaming at him and cameras are flashing everywhere. Have you ever heard an announcer at a baseball game say, no cameras please or quiet, please.

Or perhaps you might think about a quarterback in a football game. While moving to his left or right or backward or forward, he has to throw a ball down the field at a moving target. Now in that case not only does he have to put up with crowd noise that reaches levels louder than a rock concert but he has to worry about having his head torn off by a charging lineman.

Or a visiting basketball player trying to make a free throw. Does the announcer ask for quiet and no movement behind the basket? No, they say "Noise Please," and the crowd is expected to make as much movement as possible to distract the player.

Now don't get me wrong, I do like to watch golf. But I think it would be less tedious if when the player was lining up his putt, they set off fireworks.

September 7, 2016

The FBI is corrupt

I am livid when I listen to the bull crap that the FBI is giving us as to why they did not recommend indicting Hillary Clinton. They say they believed her when she said she did not understand what the C on her documents meant. They say she thought it had something to do with alphabetical order. Really? Would you not expect that anyone that was trying to get at the truth might have asked her to show them how that worked. If the C was for the third part of a document or the third paragraph in a document then why not ask her to show them an A, B or D? The only reason they didn't press that point was that they were looking for any reason to let her skate.

Everyone says that Comey is an honorable man. Perhaps he might have been at one time. And of course, he made sure that he was not part of the interrogation of Clinton. But he had to know when he read the reports from his agents that they deliberately allowed her to get away with something that any other citizen of the United States would have been sent to prison for.

Of course, that does bring us back to Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch on her plane. I imagine that the first thing he said to her was to make sure that Comey finds in favor of my wife or he or his family will be found dead. And knowing the string of bodies that the Clinton's have left in their wake, she had no doubt he meant it.

I fear that our country is lost.

October 7, 2016

It is time to cut the cord

I have been fed up with the cable companies for a long time. But except for a couple years in Phoenix when I was able to get 32 channels on a bow tie antenna, I have put up with the asinine prices charged for very little entertainment. For the past year, I have paid 106 dollars a month for 30 mg internet and practically no channels that I really watch. In fact other than channels that I could get on an outdoor antenna, I watch less than 10 cable channels. And now Cincinnati Bell is telling me that they are raising their price to 156 dollars per month. That is the last straw.

But then I heard that Cincinnati Bell had a pick your own channels deal. I thought maybe that would be a way to trim some of the fat off my bill. So I started to make my own package. The first thing I found out was that I had to have a starting package at 28.95 per month. That gave me three channels that I would watch other than what I could get on an outdoor antenna, Fox News, ESPN and ESPN2. Now let's see what I am going to have to pay for the other couple of channels that I want. You have to have something for the kids to watch, and that costs another 10 dollars per month. I also wanted the Golf Channel, and that package is another 20 dollars per month. So now my cable bill for a handful of channels I want is up to 58.95 per month, and I still would have to pay another 50 dollars for the internet. So one would think that I would be saving a little bit from the 156 the cable company wanted to charge me but not so fast. You still have to pay for equipment, three cable boxes and a modem add up to another 28 dollars per month. And of course, we haven't got the taxes and fees included yet. So there is no advantage in trying to make your own package. So what is the solution?

I have to have internet, and that will still cost me $55 per month. An outside antenna that will get me 32 channels is a one time cost of $60. On top of that for a one time charge of $39.95, I can get an Amazon firestick that gets a great many of the channels that I want just the way it comes. And if you go to youtube and search for jailbreak firestick, you can find ways to get every channel you want. Whether you want to do that or not is up to you.

In fact, you don't really even need the firestick, just download Kodi to your computer or laptop and download SportsDevil and Exodus and you have everything you need.

So as I said earlier, it is time to cut the cord.

October 11, 2016

We are being deceived by smoke and mirrors

Yesterday while everyone was so worried and focused on what Donald Trump said 11 years ago, John Kerry signed a gun control treaty with the United Nations that mandates a national gun registry for all Americans. And the fantastic thing is the mainstream media is not even paying attention to it. So I will fathom to bet that the vast majority of Americans do not even know that it happened.

Now many will argue that he has the authority to sign such a treaty but that it does not become law unless it is ratified by the Senate.

Keep in mind that was also the opinion with the Iran nuclear deal which gave Iran 400 billion dollars. And yet that treaty was never ratified by the Senate, and yet Iran immediately got their 400 billion dollars and everything they had asked for in the treaty.

America wake up. We cannot continue to allow Obama and his terrorist allies to continue to undermine the American way of life. Keep in mind that the Nazis in Germany used something similar to a National gun registry to disarm the Jews before their extermination. If the government has a list of every gun in the country, it is an easy process to send out their storm troopers to collect them. And once we are all disarmed, and without weapons, they can do anything they want with us.

We have one last chance to save our country, and that is to elect a president that does not want to see us part of the global world government where terrorists run amok. If Hillary Clinton wins the White House, our way of life is lost. Vote Trump.

October 20, 2016

Thank God This Election Cycle is Almost Over

I do not believe that I have ever felt so lost or so helpless as I did last night watching those two pompous asses stand up before the American people and tell lie after lie to attain the highest office in this once great land. For the first time, I came to the realization that there is no way that the American people will win on November 8th.

The best case scenario is that we elect a man that has no experience in running anything more substantial than a corporation. Perhaps that would be a good thing if the man was one of integrity and morals. But alas, that is not the case. He is a pompous ass blowhard that thinks that women are his personal playground.

The worst case scenario is that we elect a woman who got where she is by taking bribes and exchanging favors from the very worst governments in the world. She is guilty of the very least of using her office as Secretary of State to fill her family coffers with millions of dollars. At the worst, she is most likely guilty of having many people murdered to cover up her crimes.

In the first scenario, our country may well become the laughing stock of the world.

In the second scenario, Hillary's open border policy will cause our country to overflow with Islamic terrorists who will go city to city, town to town, village to village and farm to farm murdering every citizen who will not agree to accept Sharia law.

That is the choice we have on November 8. Either we end up with a man that may embarrass the entire country, or we end up with a woman that will open our country to millions of terrorists, and we become murdered in our sleep. And keep in mind that woman also wants to disarm the populace so that those same terrorists will be the only ones with guns.

I fear for my country.

December 7, 2016

Will cable soon go the way of the Dinosaurs?

For years I have been threatening to cancel my cable subscription because the monthly fee was becoming exorbitant. We would just get ready to dump them, call them up and they would always make a new offer for us to stay with them. But every time within a short period of time we would get a bill and guess what the rate had gone up (not just a little but a lot).

And the sad part was there was only a handful of channels that we ever watched. And some of those channels were over the air local channels that we could get with an outdoor antenna.

So I finally ordered an outdoor antenna from Amazon. It cost me a one time fee of 59 dollars. I figured that I would get maybe 30 channels, but I was amazed to find that I got 54 channels. Now I admit that a few of them were repeats, but there was still a lot of content that I only had to pay for by watching advertisements. And mind you that with cable you still have to watch commercials on almost every channel.

And if you are into old television shows you can watch many of them with a 10 dollar subscription to NetFlix or Hulu. And if you do an internet search, you can find sites like Primewire where you can watch almost every television show or movie that has ever been made. Someone mentioned to us that if we had an Amazon Firestick, you could install a program called Kodi and load it with add-ons that would allow you to watch almost anything you want. So it seems to me that cable is now obsolete. And it is their own fault.

We have been asking for years for an ala carte menu for cable television channels. But they refuse to offer that type of service because then they could not gouge us quite as much. Let's assume that they were to offer a deal where you paid a small monthly access fee (perhaps 15 or 20 dollars) and then paid a small fee per month for each channel, I doubt that most people would go to the trouble of installing other options. But then few if anyone would subscribe to the vast majority of junk channels, they offer in their mandatory packages.

There are tons of theories of why the dinosaurs went extinct, but most people agree that they simply failed to adapt to the changing world. And I believe that within a decade or so the cable companies will also become extinct if they cannot adapt to the way people watch television.

December 8, 2016

What do you really remember about your life?

I was having a conversation with my daughter the other day. She mentioned she had told her 22-year-old son that he needed to get out and do things. "You don't want to get to my age and look back, and the only thing you remember is sitting in your room playing video games."

Of course, she is entirely right. Our lives seem to fly by. One minute you are graduating from high school, and the next, you are sitting writing a blog waiting to die. So it made me think about my own life. I can honestly say that I have done a lot during my 72 years on this earth. More than the vast majority of people I would think. I have visited 14 different countries, seen parts of 33 states, and lived in 18 separate residences. Counting my youth working on farms and my time in the Navy, I have worked at 18 different jobs. And many of those jobs involved sales of one type or another, so I had a chance to meet a great many people.

So I should have tons of memories to look back on. But if you ask me to relate one thing that I have done during my life that stands out as extraordinary, I will have a difficult time picking one and telling about it. Of course, I am sure that I have lost many of my memories, along with a significant number of brain cells. One of my greatest regrets is that I did not keep a journal or a diary starting in my youth.

So my advice to the young people of today would follow along with my daughters that they should get out and do as many different things as they can. Make a list of things that may be of interest to you and do them one at a time and then add to the list. But don't just do them, record them either with word or pictures so that when you are sitting writing your death blog, you will be able to write more than one short page.

January 5, 2017

Terrorism within the borders of the United States Non-Existent since Obama elected.

I heard a speech that our esteemed President made this morning where he made the statement that there had not been one case of terrorist attack on United States soil in the last eight years. Now that is either a blatant lie, or he has a very short memory. Here is just a partial list of Islamic terror committed within our borders.

**June 1, 2009** Arkansas recruiting office shooting: Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad shot and killed one military recruiter and seriously wounded another at a Little Rock, Arkansas Army/Navy Career Center in an act of Islamic extremism. Muhammad, a convert to Islam, had visited Yemen for sixteen months where he spent time in prison and became radicalized. Muhammad, said he was part of  Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and was upset over the U.S. Army's murder of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, like the Kandahar massacre and the  Abu Ghraib prison scandal.[77] Al-Queda claimed responsibility

November 5, 2009. Fort Hood Shooting, Nadal Malik Hasan, opens fire and kills 13 and wounds 29. Obama claims it is workplace violence, not terror.

April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing, 3 killed, 180 wounded

May 3, 2015 Curtis Culwell Center shooting, Islamic State claims responsibility.

July 15, 2015 Chattanooga shootings, :  Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He first committed a drive-by shooting at a recruiting center, then traveled to a naval reserve center and continued firing. He was killed by police in a gunfight. Four Marines were killed immediately, and another Marine, a Navy sailor, and a police officer were wounded; the sailor died from his injuries two days later. The motive of the shootings is currently under investigation.[103]

December 2, 2015 San Bernardino Attack A mass shooting occurred at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, with 14 dead and 22 injured. Two suspects,  Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, fled in an SUV, but were later killed.[105][106][107][108]

June 12, 2016 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting: 49 people were killed and 53 were injured in a terrorist attack at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. The nightclub shooting is currently the deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history. The sole suspect behind the slaughter was identified as Omar Mateen, an American-born citizen with Afghan immigrant parents who was later killed.[109][110][111] The FBI asserted his possible link to radical Islam.[112] Mateen also may have been acting from homophobic intentions resulting from his own self-hatred, according to several men who claim Mateen was gay. These men say they had seen him at the club and on gay dating sites such as Grindr. However, the FBI could not find evidence to suggest Mateen was gay or targeted Pulse because it was a gay club, according to The Washington Post  [113]

September 16, 2016 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing: On September 17, 2016, a mass stabbing occurred at the Crossroads Center shopping mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Ten people were injured, and the attacker was shot dead inside the mall by an off-duty law enforcement officer.[114] ISIL claimed responsibility for the attack through its Amaq media agency, claiming Adan "was a soldier of the Islamic State".[115]

September 16-19, 2016

 2016 New York and New Jersey bombings: Four bombings or bombing attempts occurred in the  New York metropolitan area, specifically in  Seaside Park, New Jersey; Manhattan, New York; and Elizabeth, New Jersey. Thirty-one civilians were injured in one of the bombings. Ahmad Khan Rahimi was identified as a suspect in all of the incidents and apprehended on September 19 in Linden, New Jersey, after a shootout that injured three police officers.[116] According to authorities, Rahami was not part of a terrorist cell, but was motivated and inspired by the extremist Islamic ideology espoused by al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda chief propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki.[117]

---

November 28, 2016 2016 Ohio State University attack: A car ramming attack and mass stabbing occurred at 9:52 a.m. EST at Ohio State University (OSU)'s Watts Hall in Columbus, Ohio. The attacker, Somali refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan, was shot and killed by the first responding OSU police officer, and 11 people were hospitalized for injuries. According to authorities, Artan was inspired by terrorist propaganda from the  Islamic State and radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.[118]

I am sure there are other terrorist attacks that have occurred since Obama has been President. I am just thankful that this perpetual liar in Chief will be gone after January 20th.

January 20, 2017

The Inauguration of Donald Trump

I just watched the inauguration of Donald Trump, and I can honestly say that I have more hope for my country now than at any time since Ronald Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter. At that time, we had just gone through eight of the worst years this country had seen since World War II. Those eight years began with a presidential scandal called Watergate and ended with 52 of our diplomats and citizens were taken hostage by the country of Iran.

During those eight years, we suffered from high inflation and high unemployment. Neither Gerald Ford nor Carter was very successful in helping to end a terrible recession.

Then along came an outsider who said, "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem. He turned out to be one of the best presidents that we had seen. His second term probably would have produced better results if he had not been suffering from Alzheimer's.

Then everything went back to normal with the machine taking over and the good old boy's network putting their select candidates into office. The one bright spot in all that time was Ross Perot running for president in 1988. I believed then that if he could have become elected that even if he were the worst president in the history of the country at least, we would have sent a message to the politicians that we would no longer put up with their hand picking of our presidents.

And finally today we inaugurated a President that has absolutely no political experience. He owes nothing to the Democrat or Republican party, and he promises to make America Great Again and to always put America first.

Whether he can keep those lofty promises is yet to be seen. But in the meantime, I hold high hopes that America will once again become a prosperous, dynamic country that it once was.

Thank you, Donald Trump, for restoring hope to America.

February 19, 2017

Presidential Respect

People criticize our president for not being presidential. But never before in history have we had a president that was treated with so little respect. And that lack of compassion carries over to his family as well.

There was a time not too long ago when the President's family was off limit to criticism. But President Trump's family have been continuously assailed ever since he started his campaign for the highest office in our land. Imagine the outrage if someone had dared to call any other president's son or daughter retarded. Why that person would likely have been drawn and quartered on public media. And yet that is what President Trump's son was called, and not much of a murmur of protest was heard.

And since when is attacking a President's wife acceptable. Our first lady speaks five or six languages, and yet the media is allowed to say that she can't even speak English well enough to be allowed on a talk show. Imagine the outrage is Bess Truman, Mamie Eisenhower, Jacqueline Kennedy, Lady Bird Johnson, Pat Nixon, Betty Ford, or any other President's wife was spoken of in such a fashion. If it were a television personality or a news anchor that said it, they would have been fired on the spot and never worked in that capacity again. But because it is Melania Trump it okay.

And another sign of disrespect that galls me is the use of the President's name instead of calling him Mr. President. Even Fox News does it repeatedly as if Donald Trump is not worthy of the designation of Mr. President. Sure occasionally all presidents are probably referred to by their given names, but that is the exception, not the rule.

And the asinine constant call for the President's impeachment has to stop. He has done nothing to be impeached for. You can not impeach a president simply because you don't like him.

And lastly, I would like to call out Shepard Smith of Fox News as perhaps the biggest ass of them all. In a rant recently against the President he called him a liar not once but several times. He did not say that the president misspoke or that he may have stretched the truth. He called him an outright liar over and over again. And it was over something that wasn't even important. The President had misspoken about how significant his Electoral College victory was. That was something that should have been passed over or perhaps corrected but to call The Commander and Chief a liar because of it, was uncalled for. Shepard Smith should be severally chastised by Fox if not outright fired.

It is time that we got over the fact that someone other than part of "the machine" was elected. Give the man time to do the things he said he would do. If he fails to perform, then you have an opportunity in four years to vote him out of office. That is the way our Republic works. Until then pray that he is successful in fixing the mess that the previous President left him.

March 1, 2017

Not My President

This seems to be the rallying cry of everyone that cannot accept the results of our recent Presidential election. It is difficult to open a news webpage without seeing those words. It is hard to listen to a news program without hearing someone say those words. And you definitely cannot listen to a liberal talk show without hearing them.

I try to think back over my 70 plus years on this earth trying to find a time when so many people felt so strongly about an elected President of the United States. Now understand we have had a lot of Presidents that I wished were not my president but never did I utter those words. Certainly, when Obama was making his apology tour, I hoped that he was not my President. When Jimmy Carter allowed our diplomats to be remain hostages in Iran, I wished he was not my President. When Lyndon Johnson was treating Jackie Kennedy like crap after her husband was assassinated, I wished he was not my President. But I never uttered those words. To be able to honestly say that a duly elected President is not your President one of two things must be true. Either you have never been a citizen of the United States, or you have been a citizen but have renounced that citizenship.

Many might argue that it does not necessarily apply since Donald Trump did not get a majority of the popular vote. Those that argue that point simply does not understand that we are not a democracy but rather a Republic. We do not elect our President by popular vote, but instead, our founding fathers set up a system called the Electoral College. When we vote we vote for electors who in turn cast their ballot for President. The person that gets the majority of the electoral votes becomes President. Several times in our history, the person that received the most popular votes lost the election because they did not receive the most electoral votes. Others try to argue that Trump would not have won the election if it had not been for interference by the Russian government. And yet those folks cannot point to a single vote that was changed because of anyone's interference in the election. And even if they could prove that the election was fraudulent, Donald Trump would still be their President until the House of Representatives brought impeachment charges against him and he was convicted by the Senate.

So folks let's stop using these foolish words, "not my President" unless of course, you are willing to back them up by renouncing your citizenship and moving out of the United States.

May 21, 2017

Donald Trump, The Russians, and our Political Process

Once upon a time, many moons ago, there was a place where people had an expectation of privacy. If they wanted to impart something to someone else without anyone hearing them, they simply went into a quiet room or out in the woods and spoke softly. Then unless the person they gave the information to leaked it, it would remain a secret.

But that was before directional microphones, satellites orbiting the earth with audio receivers that are so sensitive they can pick up a mouse cry in the wilderness of Alaska and smartphones with the ability to record audio. Now we have no expectation of privacy. If you want something to remain private, don't say it or write it down.

So how does this fit in with my heading today? For almost a year now there has been rumor and innuendo that somehow the Russians interfered with our last presidential election. And of course, they must have had a reason for doing so. Maybe someone had something to gain from the Russians picking a winner. Well, surely it could not have been Hillary since most of the leaked emails were about here or her political party. So it must have been Trump that they were trying to help. For some reason, the FBI decided that they needed to investigate that rumor. And since they were not finding anything in their investigation, the House of Representatives decided to also examine the innuendos and not to be left out the Senate also agreed that they needed to launch an investigation of their own. Oh but that was not enough investigations, so the United States Department of Justice appointed a Special Counsel to do its own investigation.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not so naive that I do not believe that the Russians are capable of trying to interfere in the democratic process of any county. The Russians hate democracies even though they pretend to be one. Now maybe they did think that an unknown quantity like Donald Trump would be easier to manipulate than the wily old politician in Hillary Clinton. It is hard for me to understand that reasoning because all they had to do with Hillary would have been to bribe her. Give her a few million dollars, and whatever they wanted would be delivered. Offer the same amount to Trump, and he would laugh in your face.

I also believe that the Russians have wanted to interfere in our political process for many years. Certainly, when Obama whispered to them that once he was reelected, he would better be able to help them, they would have tried to sway things in his favor. That comment was not a secret, and yet the mainstream press nor the FBI, nor the House of Representatives, nor the Senate launched an investigation to see if the Russians tried to help him. And no Special Counsel was appointed by the Justice Department.

So back to the point of no expectation for privacy. Mitt Romney's presidential campaign was derailed or at least sidetracked by his statement about 47% of the people. And Hillary's run for president may well have ended when she uttered her "basket of deplorable's" comment. Both of those might have been spoken in what was supposed to be a secure setting, but they were picked up and disseminated almost immediately.

Now however we are asked to believe that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to swing the election in his favor and no one saw or heard him do it. Even more ridiculous is the idea that the most powerful investigative agency in the world could investigate anything for almost a year and come up with not one shred of evidence supporting the allocation.

But the Democrats and the mainstream media will not let this thing go. The sole reason they were clamoring for a Special Counsel was that they knew that would drag this asinine witch hunt out for at least the first four years of Trump's presidency and more than likely ensure that he would lose in his bid for reelection.

But here is something that they will not talk about or allude to. None of the information that was supposedly hacked was false. Regardless of who released it to the world, it was accurate information. Bernie Sanders was deprived of an honest run for the president because the Democrats interfered with his election bid. That is a fact, not innuendo. And yet there are no investigations into that election being impeded with. And no one is complaining that anything said about Hillary Clinton's dishonesty was false. It is a fact that she did have an unsecured email server in her house, and she did send and received classified information from it. It is a fact that her best friend and advisor did forward classified information to her perv husband. It is a fact that those were clear violations of the law and yet the same FBI that is investigating Russian interference in our elections gave Hillary and her advisor free passes because as Comey said: "there is no evidence that they had an intent to break the law." What rot! Intent has never been part of any statute. The first thing you learn about the law is that "ignorance is no excuse for the law."

Comey should have been fired immediately after he gave that first press conference, exonerating Clinton even though he outlined a perfect case for putting her in prison and throwing away the key.

We are at a crossroad in our history. If we cannot find a way to end this farce the Russians may well get what they want, a United States that is no longer democratic. We will become what the Democratic Party alleges that they are. That is where people go into the back room, have a few drinks, smoke a few cigars, and select who the next president will be. Think long and hard on that while you are deliberately trying to derail the duly elected President of the United States of America.

June 3, 2017

The Paris Agreement, The United Nations and Nato

For the first time in history, a president of the United States put his country first when President Trump pulled us out of the Paris Climate Agreement. It amazes me that most of the world hates our country, and yet we are expected to pay more to support them than any other country.

While I cannot find a specific amount that the United States was expected to pay to the "poorer countries" to help them meet their emission goals, I am sure that it was considerably more than any other country on earth.

Take Nato, for example. The United States pays three times more into that organization than any other country, and yet the European countries are the ones that benefit the most.

Let's move on to the United Nations. The United States pays over twice as much to the United Nations budget than any other nation. In fact, we pay over twice as much into that organization than China and Russia combined. And what do we get for our vast expenditures? Derision, Hatred, and Mockery.

I am incredibly thankful that finally, we have a President that puts the United States first and not last as most of his predecessors have done.

July 23, 2017

Matt Kuchar comes up short again

You had to feel a little sorry for Matt Kucher today, or at least I did. I had watched him play professional golf for the last 17 years and never before had he been this close to a major title.

For the first three rounds of the British Open or as they call it over there the Open Championship, Matt had stayed close to Jordan Spieth. And today, the final day of the tournament he began the day just three strokes off the lead. Never before had he started the final round of a major tournament this close to the lead. And after the second hole, he had closed the lead to just two strokes. As they teed off the 13th hole, Kuchar and Spieth were tied for the lead, and I am sure that Matt felt if he played well the rest of the way he had a good chance at least a playoff. And then disaster struck Spieth. He used his driver (not his steadiest club) and hit the ball at least 100 yards off the fairway. It came to rest in deep rough on the top of a hill, and after surveying the situation, Spieth elected to take an unplayable lie. He conferred with about every official on the course and 20 minutes later was set to hit his third shot from a spot on the course where he could not even see the green. Surely he would end up with at least a triple bogey on this hole.

As the ball left his club, he shook his head in disdain, knowing that it would end up in even more trouble, perhaps in one of the pot bunkers that guard the green. But as luck would have it, it wound up in the short grass just in front of the green. His fourth shot came to rest about 14 feet from the cup. He had missed many putts from shorter distances than that on this day. I am sure that Matt felt quite confident at that point in the match. Surely he would have at least two-shot lead (something he had never experienced on the final day of any major championship before).

But then the old Jordan Spieth reemerged. He made that putt for bogey. And Kuchar's lead was only one stroke, not two.

One the 14th, par-three Spieth hit a magnificent drive and made birdie to Kuchar's par, and they were tied again. That was the start of five of the most tremendous finishing holes in Open history. Spieth scored an eagle on 15th, another birdie on the 16th, another birdie on the 17 and finally a par on the 18th to win by three strokes which were his margin to start the day.

Unbeknownst to Matt, his wife and children had flown in with the hopes of watching him collect his first major trophy.

I have to be honest, when I saw how badly Spieth had messed up his drive on the thirteenth tee, I gave up on him having any chance to win that tournament. I told my wife at that point that I figured he had lost the opportunity. After all, he had shown no signs, all day that he had anything close to his A-game. Surely even Spieth would fold under the tremendous disappointment or having the lead evaporate with only five holes to play.

While I feel disappointed for Kuch, I am extremely happy for Jordan. This young man had done things on the golf course that few others in golfing history have ever accomplished. If he stays healthy and stays humble, I would not be surprised if he will end up breaking most if not all the records of golf. Way to go, Jordan.

August 17, 2017

Statues, Racism and American History

I cannot help myself, I have to add my two cents to this debate. Should the statues of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and many others that fought for the South in the War of Northern aggression be torn down and destroyed? Absolutely. After all, some people live in this country and people that live in other countries that find these statues to be objectionable. And surely we cannot have anything that brings mental anguish to others.

But we cannot stop with just the statues. How about all those history books that have pictures of Lee and others that are depicted as military geniuses who led there outnumbered, outgunned, starving troops against superior forces that were well trained, well-fed, well-armed men and prevailed many times?

We must find those texts, put them in huge piles, and burn them so that all that remains are ashes. Not one word must be left to remind anyone of the heroism of these terrible slave owners. Oh, but you say, not all of those folks were slave owners. That doesn't matter, they fought to perpetuate slavery. Oh my, I see that some even disagree with that premise. They say that some of those folks were fighting because their homeland was being invaded by a large hostile force. I guess that is why they called it the "War of Northern Aggression." Perhaps some of you might be able to empathize with that? You might even pick up arms to protect this land that you love if someone were to invade?

But perhaps some cannot agree with that. After all, we are raising a whole generation of wimps that need to have "safe spaces" in college, high school, grade school, and the workplace so that they do not have to go out on "the range" so that they will not hear a discouraging word.

So we must make sure that everyone's tender feelings are protected. So let's not stop with the statues and pictures of Confederate generals and soldiers. We need to ferret out any vestige or mentions of slave owners or slave traders.

So statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson must come down. After all, both of them were slave owners. It is even thought that Thomas Jefferson had a child with one of his slaves. Was that child born as a result of a consensual relationship? Did the mother have the right to say no to the sexual advances of Jefferson? Probably not. After all, she was a slave. So that would make Jefferson not only a slave owner but a rapist as well. Surely then that vile, repulsive man's images must be removed from the land even though he wrote much of the Declaration of Independence. So down must come the Jefferson Memorial, and while you are at it get out the sand plasters and head for South Dakota and get those vile images off of Mount Rushmore. Of course, that is going to leave only two heroes left on that mountain. But wait how about those two? How about Abraham Lincoln. Wasn't he responsible for the deaths of more American's than any other president in history? So why not remove his image as well? Surely someone must be offended by what he did? And that would leave Teddy Roosevelt, what about him. Wasn't he a vile racist that led troops against Spanish speaking people?

So perhaps we shouldn't bother with sandblasters. That would take too long. How about instead using several thousands of pounds of plastic explosives. But even that might not be thorough enough. After all, there might be small pieces of those heads left that someone might recognize. So the remains would have to be ground up into sand and then spread out so that nothing is left.

Oh, and all those history books and historical novels must be found and destroyed. And don't forget the digital copies of those books. They need to be permanently erased from every nook and cranny of the country and the web.

So I guess that would satisfy everyone throughout the world. No, you say. There are other things that some people might find to be objectionable. How about the Bible, the Koran, or any other religious book? Shouldn't they be destroyed as well? I am positive some people find them to be objectionable. And how about the sculptures and paintings by Michelangelo, Leonardo Davinci, and others that depict religious scenes? Shouldn't they be removed as well? And add all the books that show those images to the bonfire. And don't forget statues like "David" which show male or female genitalia. Indeed they have to be torn down as well. Someone would have to be disturbed by such images. Add any book that shows such pictures to the bonfire.

But alas, you cannot do that. Not because you would violate someone's freedom of speech, their freedom of expression, or their freedom of religion. None of those things matter in this day of political correctness. Nothing is more important than guarding the tender feelings or the snowflakes living in this day and age. Nothing that is except for the one thing that a bonfire that big would create. Surely all those books being burned would be catastrophic to our earth. Or have you forgotten about "global warming"?

October 2, 2017

The Largest Mass Shooting in United States History

Can someone please explain this to me? Because I have no idea how something like this happened. Now, I understand how a lot of shootings happen. I know there are religious fanatics that believe that God is directing them to harm, maim, and kill innocent men, women, and children. Although I do find it hard to believe that they are that gullible. But then when I look at other religions and the things that they take as gospel I suppose they are not far off of the norm. And when I look at those who use science as their religions and the ridiculous things they take as fact when there is not one piece of evidence to support those beliefs, I see little difference between them and religious fanatics.

And I even somewhat understand when a young person goes off the deep end and kills people that he or she perceives to have wronged them in some way. Perhaps they were bullied by their classmates or abused by friends or relatives. That can make almost anyone snap.

And while they are totally wrong, I can see where some might believe that the police are fair game. Perhaps they or someone they know was harassed by the police, or they believe the outrageous news stories of police brutality.

Any of those things, while they are entirely wrong, I can understand how they happen. But this is totally different. So far at least they have not found any link between this 64-year-old man and terrorism. The news did say that he was well known to local police, leading me to believe that he might have caused some kind of problems in the past. Or perhaps he just hung out in the same places that off duty police might hang out.

But one has to ask, how did he obtain fully automatic weapons, that even most law enforcement personnel could not own? And what possible reason could he have had to decide to open fire on a country music festival, killing over 50 people and injuring over 500 others?

Dear Lord, please tell me that this is not going to become. the new norm.

October 29, 2017

Collusion With Russia

I am amazed that after months of nothing, suddenly Muller decides to bring an indictment. Of course, we have no idea who he is indicting, or for what but I suppose after he notifies the Democrats, he will clue in the rest of us.

But here is the thing. Proof has now come out that this entire investigation started as a result of the DNC paying someone to make a fraudulent dossier on Trump where it would appear that he was colluding with the Russians to get elected.

Now if this were taken in front of any honest judge, it would immediately be thrown out as "fruit of the poisonous tree." But I guess Muller does not know that part of the law. Why should he, after all, he was only the Director of the FBI for several years.

But I guess I should remember that Muller was good friends with James Comey who Trump fired. But wait, would that not make this a matter of conflict of interest on Muller's part?

Or does that only apply if the person with the conflict supports Trump?

October 31, 2017

Meddling in Elections

I have totally run out of patience with those who keep hammering that we need to thoroughly investigate the Russian involvement in our last Presidential election. Dear God, even Fox News can't let that tired line go.

Did the Russians attempt to interfere in that election, without a doubt just as they probably have tried to interfere in every election of a democratic nation since the close of World War II? Or are there some of you that buy into the delusion of Barak Obama that the Cold War is over. The Cold War will never be over as long as our people have something that Russia and other despotic dictatorships don't have. That is the freedom to elect our own leaders. If their citizens suddenly got the notion that they wanted to do that, their governments would crumble. So, of course, they are going to try to discredit the results of our elections.

And that is precisely what happened after Donald Trump won the presidency. Now all anyone can talk about is how illegitimate Donald Trump's presidency is. Now understand that no one has been able to produce one shred of evidence that even one vote was changed by Russian interference. I doubt that the Russians cared one iota who became President between Trump and Clinton. The best possible outcome for them might have been to have an avowed Socialist like Sanders to become President.

There is ample evidence that many votes were changed in the Democratic Primaries by the DNC interfering in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Bernie Sanders. In fact, if you want to stretch a point, it is entirely possible that if the DNC had not put hobbles on poor old Bernie that he might have received the Democratic nomination and possibly became president instead of Trump.

And one other excellent point, how can we complain when another country attempts to sway our voters one way or the other. As I said I believe that Russia and many other dictatorial governments try to subtly interfere in our elections. That is a far cry from Barak Obama blatantly trying to interfere in the British Brexit vote. He came right out and told the British people that if they voted to leave the European Union and got into trouble that they would go to the back of the line before we would help them. Now that is as close to criminally interfering in the election of another country as you can get.

We have a special counsel who has spent countless man-hours and millions of dollars and has not been able to come up with anything remotely connected to collusion by Donald Trump and the Russians.

He has managed to bring two indictments in a case that was started way back in 2012 and has nothing to do with our election. It is time to put the witch hunt to bed.

November 2, 2017

Obama, Refugees, and ISIS

According to a source close to the United Nations Meetings on Refugees (who shall remain nameless for her own protection), thousands of so-called "refugees" are being flown into the United States under cover of darkness. It is reported that this is to save on airfare but is more likely to avoid alarming citizens at the airports.

She reports that despite Hillary Clinton's and Barak Obamas's claims that the "refugees" are mostly women and children that the vast majority are adult males, many of them between 40 and 45 years old.

Once in this country, they are given new identities, including driver's licenses and social security cards, and are set up in housing, given food and welfare and Medicaid.

It is my opinion that these are not mere refugees, but rather ISIS militants that Obama is having planted into our country so that when the time is right, they can attack the citizens of this country.

Lord help us if the Democrats succeed in disarming the citizens of this country.

November 4, 2017

Happy Bedlam Day

I need to take a few minutes off from saving the world to honor an old and honorable tradition, Bedlam football.

Since living in the State of Oklahoma from 1998 to 2005, I have looked forward to this game every year. While I know that many people would view me as a total traitor for not having a clear favorite between the two teams, I will use the excuse that I am not a native Oklahoman. And also I did live in Mannford, Oklahoma which is a short distance from Stillwater, Oklahoma (the home of the Oklahoma State Cowboys) and later in Oklahoma City fairly close to Norman, Oklahoma (The home of Oklahoma University),

Instead, I usually root for whichever team has the best chance to get to a major bowl game.

That choice is particularly challenging this year since both teams are nationally ranked, both teams have 7-1 records, and both teams are 4-1 in the Big 12. Also, both teams control their own destiny to get to the Big 12 Championship game a few weeks from now.

While winning that game will not guarantee that team will play in the college football playoffs, the loser of today's game (in the word's of Dizzy Dean) will have two chances to play for the national championship "slim and none."

So whether you bleed "crimson and cream" or your favorite color is "bright orange" get out the "boomer schooner" or rally around "Pistol Pete" and turn your attention to Stillwater, Oklahoma for the most critical Bedlam game in some time.

I have one more thing to say, BOOMER SOONER and GO POKES.

November 4, 2017

No, Your World Will Not Go Dark Today

A woman in Michigan is posting a video on Facebook claiming that the Department of Defense is going to create an electromagnetic pulse test that will leave us all in the dark.

She further states that all electronics will cease to work and if we are not prepared we will all die

.As of last night that video had 5 million views.  
News 9 in Colorado contacted the Defense Department to see f the story had any merit.  
They were told that yes the Department was going to be doing tests but that they would only affect Ham Radio Operators and not the power grid.  
So, folks, you can take off your tin foil hats. Your world will not go dark today.

November 7, 2017

Do we need more gun control or more God Control?

All too often lately, it seems, an evil man with a gun destroys many lives. The latest episode occurred in a little rural community in Texas on Sunday.

And as always happens, people are already blaming guns for the carnage. While it is true that if this man had not been able to get his hands on guns, people would not have died from bullets. But that doesn't mean that people would not have died.

As we saw recently in New York City and several times in Europe this year, other weapons can be used in the place of firearms. In New York, a truck killed and injured multiple people. There is nothing to say that this evil man in Texas might not have used his truck to mow people down in the parking lot.

A few years ago, In Boston, two evil brothers, used pressure cookers with homemade explosive devices inside to kill and injure people running in the Boston Marathon. Who is to say that this evil man in Texas could not have made such a device to carry out his murderous plot?

Or if nothing else, once the service was underway, he could have set the church on fire. Evil has multiple weapons readily at their disposal.

You can pass all the laws that you want, but it is clear to me that the only people that will obey those laws are law-abiding people. We have laws against murder, and yet people still kill innocent people. We have laws against drinking and driving, and yet our courtrooms are crowded with drunken driving cases. We have laws against theft, and yet almost every one of us has been the victim of a thief (either physical or cyber) at one time or another in our lives.

Laws do not stop evil people from doing evil acts. Only inculcating morals into our children can do that. I do not have the statistics to prove my point, but it is my firm belief that when I was young and, most everyone worshipped God in some way that there was far less violent crime.

Or maybe it was just that there was not as much media or media coverage of the evil acts that went on. But I doubt that. I believe that in our desire to be politically correct, we have entirely removed God from many of our lives. Having no fear of a "judgment day," we have created more evil people than ever before.

Perhaps the answer is not more gun control, but rather more God control.

November 9, 2017

From the Mouths of Babes

The local church was doing an event to honor local veterans, and since I had served in the Navy at the beginning of the Viet Nam Conflict (they didn't think that it was a war), she decided to submit my name along with where I served and what my rank was.

When my 10-year-old grandson read it, he asked, "Grandpa, what is a yeoman"? I replied that it was the Navy's version of an office worker.

Without hesitation, he said, "So you were a failure."

I suppose he expected that I had done something more exciting, like maybe being a Navy Seal. I replied that being a yeoman had taught me to type 85 words per minute, and if I had not learned that skill, I could not have written 30 published books.

He immediately came back with "But did you make any money:?

I said, "Yes, I made a few thousand dollars selling my books."

His response, "Just as I said, you are a failure."

November 10, 2017

Trump's Tax Plan and the National Debt

For the past few days, I have been trying to defend our President's proposed tax plan. Well, actually, I guess what I have been trying to protect is what the House of Representatives and the Senate have been sending out masquerading as Trump's Tax Plan.

This morning I opened up Facebook and had a comment from a member of a conservative group, saying that I was nuts. His question "Does it not concern you that this flimflam tax plan will add perhaps $1 Trillion to the National Debt in 10 years."

And that has been one of the things that the Democrats and the mainstream media has been touting as well. I wonder where they were when Obama was adding more to the National Debt than all other presidents combined.

But in actuality, if I am worried about the National Debt, I guess that I am the only one.

In 1939 "The Public Debt Acts" was passed designed to limit the amount of debt that The United States could incur. While that sounded like a good idea at the time, it has proved to be totally worthless. I compare it to the National Basketball Associations "salary cap." When Michael Jordan was playing the salary cap was set at 25 million dollars per team. That was the amount of money that each team could spend on their entire player roster. But Michael Jordan was being paid 30 million dollars. So the salary cap was in effect worthless.

We all know what happens each time we reach the borrowing limit. The President asks for the ceiling to be raised, and the Congress complies. Once a few years ago, Congress actually grew a pair and refused to raise the debt limit for a few days. An outcry of doom and gloom went up to the heavens, and Congress soon caved and raised the Debt Limit, once again. Of course, they had to save face in some way, so they put a phony limit on what each department could increase their budget. This was President Obama's idea, but the Republican House of Representatives got blamed for what was known as sequestration.

But the net result was the same. Our debt continued to climb.

Imagine what would happen if you run your finances the way the government runs theirs. Most of us have heard our fiscally responsible elected officials as they argue about the National Debt. A few years ago, a balanced budget amendment was tossed around in Congress. But it gained no steam because they could not figure out how to make it work. Now when they talk about balancing the budget, it is not immediately or next year but rather a period of 10 years is usually thrown out for consideration. And of course, they have no idea how they are going to even do that.

So to apply that to our own finances. You continually spend more money than you take in. You make up the difference by taking out unsecured bank loans. Eventually, the bank calls you in and asks for their money. You tell them that you can't pay them right now but if they loan you more money right now, that in perhaps 10 years you will try to not spend more money than you make. Of course, you carefully avoid telling the bank that you will never be able to pay back what you presently owe.

Below is something to help you understand how badly this country is in debt.

We are now over 20 trillion dollars in debt. To put that in perspective, that is more money than has ever been printed.

I saw a picture on the internet that shows what 20 Trillion dollars looks like in stacks of 100 dollar bills. It showed the Statue of Liberty dwarfed and surrounded by those stacks of bills.

The following is the United States Debt Clock:

United States National Debt | $20,478,255,206,221.39

---|---

United States National Debt Per Person | $62,603.36

United States National Debt Per Household | $162,142.69

Total US Unfunded Liabilities | $123,271,957,164,373.30

Social Security Unfunded Liability | $15,107,766,017,013.60

Medicare Unfunded Liability | $79,020,008,971,530.52

Prescription Drug Unfunded Liability | $19,942,739,067,619.56

National Healthcare Unfunded Liability | $9,201,443,108,209.60

Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Person | $376,850.37

Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Household | $976,042.46

United States Population | 327,111,146

As you can see every man, woman, and child in the United States now owes $376,850.37. Who among you is willing to get out your checkbook and write out that amount to the U.S. Treasury? And don't forget to write a similar check for your spouse and each of your children.

Of course, we continually hear that if we tax the rich enough, we could solve this problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. If we taxed everyone that makes over 1 million dollars per year, it would not amount to a drop in the bucket in solving our National Debt problem.

So is the situation hopeless? No, not at all. There is a solution, but it is so unthinkable, so terrible, so devastating that no one will ever propose it. The answer is to turn over our Monopoly table and play a new game, with one important new rule that our country could never again spend more money than we take in in revenue.

There is an old saying that whether something is a good idea or not, "depends on whose ox is being gored." If we were to declare bankruptcy, everyone's ox would be gored. There would be no more welfare, no more social security, no more Medicare or Medicaid. Every single person in the country would suffer extreme hardship. And yet at some point, it will have to come. The question is how far into the future we can put it off.

Of course, there is good news. I am 73 years old and in all likelihood will long be dead by the time we declare bankruptcy.

November 30, 2017

The World Has Changed

What prompted me to write this article was a conversation that was happening on FaceBook this morning. It was mentioned that the Democrats wanted to take the right to vote away from older Americans. I made the comment that I thought the voting age should be raised to 35. And then after I had received a few replies (most of them humorous), I explained my position by saying that most of the younger people had just gotten out of their parent's basements at 35 and out on their own.

Someone then replied that it is a changing world, pointing out that it may be more challenging to get started in life today than it was in a bygone era. So I had to look back at when I was starting out. I left my parent's house when I was 18 to join the Navy. When I returned, I did stay with them for 2 weeks while I was trying to find a job. And make no mistake, the job market sucked in 1964.

But I had two choices at that point, I could continue to stay with my parents, get up and milk the cows every morning or go out and find work elsewhere.

I had been a Yeoman in the Navy, which relates to an office worker and so the job that I really wanted was working in an office as a management trainee. But unfortunately, those types of jobs were few and far between. So I took a job working as a maintenance man for the Randolph Seed Company. Now maintenance was really a glorified janitor's job, and it paid next to nothing, but it was what I could get.

On my days off, I would go around to every place that might be hiring and put in my application. I had never heard of a resume at that time, so I filled out applications and marked that I would work any job and any shift. And guess what, nobody called me back.

Finally, I went into a factory in Allegheny, New York, Acme Electric Corp. I had no real hope that they would hire me any more than the one hundred or so other places I had been to. So when I started filling out the application, I got to the spot of what shift, I said I will only work days.

I got called in the following day.

Since that time, I have never been unemployed for more than a few days. I have never drawn a day's unemployment compensation and have never accepted welfare of any kind unless someone wants to argue that Social Security equates to Welfare. Perhaps it does since the money I paid in is long gone, spent on other things and so the money I receive is what someone else is paying in.

So how does all this fit into the discussion about how things have changed making it more difficult for kids today to get started on their own? I don't buy the argument.

Of course, things are different today. The job with Acme Electric Corporation, winding coils would not be available to a young person today. Back then, factories trained new employees. Today they expect someone to have the necessary skills and education to do the job when they start. But there are tons of other entry-level jobs that are available. A young person can get a job at a grocery store, a fast-food outlet, a gas station. While there were a few of those types of jobs when I got out of the Navy, they were nowhere as prevalent as they are today.

So I guess the next argument would be, but they don't pay enough to survive. I have to tell you that my hourly pay at Acme Electric was $1.17 per hour. I don't know how that equates to the minimum wage today, but it wasn't much.

When I said that the world has changed, it has and in detrimental ways. Many of the things that kids have today didn't exist when I was growing up. I guess I was 9 or 10 before we got our first television and the kids did not run the set. Most of the time, I would be in my room, reading or doing homework while the folks watched whatever they wanted. We also did not have the internet, mobile phones, or video games. Looking back rather than feel that I missed out on those things, I thank God that they were not yet invented.

I watch my grandchildren sitting in front of the television. More than likely, they will be watching Youtube as some idiot shows them how to play a video game that they will in all likelihood never own. Of course, they are not really watching the television. They are playing something else on the mobile phone that their mother thought they just had to have so that she could get a hold of them when need be.

I don't see the point because if she really wants them, they ignore her call anyway.

I imagine if I had all those distractions when I was growing up, I probably would have become a couch potato and when it came time to move away and get out on my own, I would have thought what's the point?

But these distractions have another negative effect on those children as well. When I left the next, all I needed was a roof over my head, a car, some gasoline, the basic utilities, and a few groceries. Today these poor kids wouldn't be able to live without a cell phone (at least $45 per month), Cable Television (another $90 per month), Internet (another $45 per month), a video game system of some kind and who knows what else, they couldn't live without.

Oh, and I guess I totally forgot that nobody can survive unless they go to college, where they can sit in their dorms and play video games on their smartphones. I have no idea what that costs today, but I imagine it is in the high six figures. But at least they learn that socialism is the very best form of government because if they can't find a job, the government will take care of them anyway.

I am genuinely thankful that I am not just starting out today. I would never have learned the work ethic that my Father taught me as a young boy. Why more than likely it is illegal for a kid to work in the barn alongside his parents when he is 5 or 6 years old. It is probably against some law for a child younger than that to have to do housework and the dishes.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not blaming the children of today. It is not the children that buy the televisions that they sit in front of every waking hour. It is not the children that buy them smartphones or video games.

And in retrospect, I am not blaming the parents, entirely either. What we become is what we learn. When I was growing up, we learned to work, to do homework, to learn. According to my parents, they had to work harder than I did, and I have no reason to doubt that. I know that my children didn't work as hard as their mother and I did, growing up. We did not have a barn full of cows that had to be milked twice a day. The cows we didn't have didn't create manure that had to be shoveled out of the gutters every day. The cows that we didn't have didn't need hay to be put in the barn in the summer so that we could feed them with it during the winter.

But my children did learn how to work, taught by their parents. I was self-employed, owning a contract cleaning company and a laundromat when they were very young and an electronics business when they were older. Everyone helped clean offices, grocery store floors, and clean up the laundromat when it closed. And later they learned to stuff circuit boards and solder the components in place.
My grandchildren do not have to work as hard as their parents, and their children will work even less. I hate to think of what it will be like by the time my grandchildren are grown and have another generation who do practically nothing for themselves. I imagine that robots will be picking up their clothing, cooking their meals, and even wiping their behinds.

Yes, the world has changed, and I submit very few of the changes have been for the better.

December 15, 2017

Is It Possible to Drain The Swamp

I keep hearing that expression over and over again when people talk about the Trump presidency. My problem is that I don't believe that it is possible to drain the swamp if you are referring to Washington, D.C because the entire city is full of swamp creatures, some of them red and others blue. Every member of the Senate and every member of The House of Representatives belong to some segment of the swamp. They are all corrupt and received their positions either by promising favors to rich, influential people or by flat out lying about their opponents.

If I sound disillusioned, it is because I am. The last straw was the Alabama Senate Race, wherein my opinion, the mainstream media paid women to flat out lie about Judge Roy Moore. Of course, the only reason that they were successful was that Republicans jumped on the bandwagon calling him a pedophile and saying that he was unfit to be in the Senate. My God, if you drove everyone out of the Senate that didn't deserve to be there, the entire chamber would be devoid of human life.

Now I guarantee you that in every election going forward, some woman or women and perhaps men, will come forward and accused the Republican candidate of sexual misconduct, sexual harassment or rape. It worked in Alabama, a bright red state, so it should work anywhere.

I fear that our Republic has ceased to exist as a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It has only been in the last few decades that we have become so polarized that legislation has to be passed by entire members of the ruling party because not one member of the opposition is willing to put the people ahead of their party.

Obamacare is a prime example. It was passed with not one Republican vote. And now every bill that is put forward by the Republicans fail if they cannot get 50 Republicans to vote for it because every Democrat votes against it. I do not believe that is how our government is supposed to work.

The swamp is filled with sewage and is far too big to drain.

December 17, 2017

Are You Proud to be an American?

According to a new poll out this morning, whey asked are you proud to be an American, 65% of those identifying themselves as conservative said yes, 37% of those identifying themselves as liberal said yes.

Now frankly, I find it hard to believe that 100% of those living in this country would not say they are proud to live here. Sure I suppose we all have something that we find distasteful about the United States. For me, the idea of killing unborn children is offensive. But that doesn't mean that my overall impression of this country is not favorable. For instance, if I lived in a lot of countries, I would not be able to openly criticize the government.

Perhaps you do not like that Donald Trump is president. Maybe you would rather live in North Korea. Try publicly announcing that you hate the leader there. At least here you have the option of voting again in 2020, and if the Democrats put up someone that is not wholly as corrupt as Hillary Clinton, you might be able to unseat the sitting president.

Perhaps, you think that there are racists that live in the United States, then move to Iran where if you don't agree with Sharia Law they cut off your head.

Maybe you are a woman and think that you don't have the same rights as men. Perhaps you would rather live in Saudi Arabia or another Muslim country where you are not allowed to drive a car or go to a public beach if you are not accompanied by a male relative. And in many of those countries if your husband tires of you, all he has to do is accuse you of adultery, and you will end up in the public square with people throwing large stones at you.

This is not a perfect country. I remember an old television show that started every episode with the phrase: "I want you to know that Democracy is a very bad form of government, but always remember that all the others are so much worse."

If you are not proud to be an American, please feel free to move to another country that you can be proud of.

December 27, 2017

Are we entering the danger zone?

It was November 2016, and many of us were merrily skipping our way down the Yellow Brick Road singing "ding dong the witch is dead, the wicked old witch is dead." And while it was true that she was badly maimed if not mortally wounded, we should have remembered that her coven and her minions were still alive and well.

I am sure that we all breathed a sigh of relief then, but if we assumed that we were safe from the "dark side" for a full 8 years, we were badly mistaken. I fear that we are entering the most dangerous year of the long history of our republic since 1861.

History tells us that the party in power frequently loses control of one or both houses of Congress in the first midterm election. If that should happen, there could well be disastrous results for our country. Certainly, if the Democrats take back, the House of Representatives articles of impeachment are bound to be drafted and in all likelihood passed. And if heaven forbid if the Democrats win the Senate as well, it would not be a long shot to suggest that our President might be found guilty even though he has committed no crime.

But even if that proves not to be the case, loss of the Senate would make it impossible to get any judges appointed or other vacancies filled. Look at the Supreme Court. There are only two justices that are under the age of 60, while two are over the age of 80. Indeed, it is possible that one or both of the octogenarians might die or retire. Also, another Justice is 79 years old, putting him in the same category as the two previously mentioned. If all three should somehow become unable to fulfill their duties, then with a Democratic Senate, President Trump would have to appoint someone that would be less than Conservative, or we would be left with a shorthanded court for another two to four years.

Imagine our border overflowing with terrorists as the courts rule in favor of illegal immigrants. Imagine our gun rights being eroded to the point where we are unable to defend ourselves against those same terrorists.

No, my friends, "the battle is not over, the battle has only begun." If we fail to secure a conservative House of Representatives and a conservative Senate, we are doomed as a free nation. It is my opinion that the party in power does not lose the first midterm because they have done anything wrong, but rather because of voter apathy. It is so easy to sit back and imagine that everything will be alright when danger lurks around every corner.

Perhaps if we had an unbiased press. Probably if people were given the facts instead of innuendo. Maybe if 'wishes were fishes we'd have some to fry, if wished were horses we'd have some to ride". No, perhaps doesn't "cut the mustard." We must remain vigilant, lest we lose all that we have gained in November of 2016.

January 2, 2018

Is Money the Root of all Evil?

This morning while listening to Fox News, I heard a so-called Bishop ranting against the new California law that makes recreational marijuana legal. His first objection was that the law was passed to bring more money into the tax coffers of the state. And then he stated, "They should heed the Bible's counsel which says that money is the root of all evil."

That is perhaps the most misquoted scripture in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible say that money is the root of all evil. In fact, many scriptures say that money is, in fact, good. One such scripture is Ecclesiastes 10:19 says: "Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything." So it should be evident that if money answers everything, it cannot be evil.

Another scripture Psalms 112:3 adds: "Wealth and riches are in his house, and his righteousness endures forever." So this makes it clear that a person can have both riches and righteousness.

The correct quote is found in 1st Timothy 6"10: "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

I have mixed feelings about the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. On the one hand, I have seen the disaster of trying to outlaw something that grows naturally. The billions of dollars that have been spent incarcerating people and keeping them locked up for years for using something that is probably no more harmful than alcohol seems a total waste to me. On the other hand, I have also seen families ruined because one member was addicted to drugs or alcohol. I don't have any idea whether marijuana is addictive or not. Many say that it is not but that it is a gateway drug to harder drugs.

But the argument cannot be that a state should avoid legalizing it because it will make money for the state.

My rant this morning is neither for nor against the use of marijuana. It is against people claiming to be ministers of God and misquoting his word for their own benefit.

January 2, 2018

What is the value of a bowl of stew?

Have you ever wondered how two groups of people came to hate each other so much that they have been trying to kill one another for thousands of years? These two groups are the Arabs, mostly of Muslim belief and the Israelites.

What could have been so traumatic that something that happened 2000 years before the birth of Jesus Christ could still be causing so much hatred today?

Well, it began with the birth of two twins to Isaac, the son of Abraham and his wife, Rebekah. It is said that even before the boys were born, they were in a struggle for position. The story is that although Esau was the firstborn, giving him what was called the birthright, his brother Jacob was holding onto his heel even as he was born.

Now these boys could not have been more different. Esau was a powerful, hairy man that made his way in the world as a hunter of game. Jacob, on the other hand, was a herder of sheep, living off the land. The Bible says he was a dweller in tents.

Isaac loved Esau more than his brother, although God had foretold that Jacob would be the one to receive the birthright and to lead his people. Rebekah, however, loved Jacob the most.

This sounds like a genuinely dysfunctional family to me. So how does this story turn out badly?

Well, one day Esau goes out on a hunting trip and returns, apparently empty-handed. When he enters the camp, Jacob is busy cooking up a pot of stew. Esau asks him for some of the stew since he is ravenous. Jacob agrees but only on the condition that Esau sells him his birthright. Esau's response was, what good is the birthright if I am to starve to death? So for a bowl of stew, he sells his birthright to his brother.

Now if you listen to the descendants of Esau, the Arabs, they say Jacob stole the birthright. If you listen to the Israelites, they say that Esau sold his birthright. Regardless for this to work, Isaac would have to bless Jacob instead of Esau, something he had no intention of doing. So Jacob's mother formulated a plan. When Isaac was preparing to bless the older brother, she dressed Jacob in his brother's clothing and sent him into his father for the blessing. While the Bible does not explicitly say so, it appears that Isaac must have been blind or nearly so at the time.

So the ruse worked and Isaac being deceived blessed the wrong son. When Esau came for the blessing, Isaac discovered his mistake, but he could not undo what he had done.

Esau then becomes enraged and vows to kill Jacob as soon as his father passes away. Rebekah sends Jacob away to a relative. She figured that it would only be for a few days, but as we now know, Esau never gave up his murderous vow.

So generation after generation, the descendants of Esau have been trying to kill the descendants of Jacob. Now you would think that after 4000 years they could forgive and forget, but that is not the case. The real problem is that the descendants of Esau are not satisfied with trying to kill the descendants of Jacob. They have now vowed to kill anyone that does not believe as they do.

Now here is where the strange part of the story comes in. The Israelites want a little piece of sand in the Middle East that has very little monetary value. The Arabs have most everything else in the region, including some of the most oil-rich lands in the world.

So it isn't about the land. It is merely that there are still descendants of Jacob that are alive. And that will never be tolerated by the descendants of Esau.

So all you folks that believe that peace in the Middle East is possible, think again. 4000 years of strife proves otherwise.

January 6, 2018

Are you tired of winning yet?

Perhaps one of the strangest things that President Trump said was that we the American people would get tired of winning. Here is the quote.

"We're going to win at trade, we're going to win at the border. We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning, you're going to come to me and go 'Please, please, we can't win anymore.' You'll say 'Please, Mr. President, we beg you, sir, we don't want to win anymore. And I'll say I'm sorry we are going to keep on winning and make America great again."

And once again then-President-elect Trump was right. Of course, not everyone is tired of winning, but the Democrats definitely are. When you put up what Donald Trump has accomplished in just one year against the failure of Obama's eight years, it truly makes the Democrats look like total losers.

Barak Obama was the only President in our history that did not have a single year of 3% GDP growth. In fact, he was quoted as saying that we may never again see a 3% growth.

And though the final figures are not out yet on Trump's first year, the numbers project that we will have our first 3% GDP growth since before Obama took office. Of course, the Democrats will tell you that is because of the policies that Obama put in place, just as they tell you that Obama's failures are the result of George Bush's policies. Isn't it strange that if someone else does well, it is because of Obama and when Obama did poorly (in almost everything) it was due to the failure of someone else?

How about border control, something that Donald Trump promised during his campaign. Even without building the wall that would surely have made the numbers better illegal border crossings were at a 17 year low. Here is the quote from the Washington Times: U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported 310,531 apprehensions nationwide in fiscal 2017, which ended Sept. 30, a decline of 25 percent from a year earlier and the lowest level since 1971.

How about the decline of ISIS? Obama called them the JV team and stood by and watched as they took over huge junks of Syria and Iraq. In just the first year of Trump's presidency, we have seen ISIS decline to the point where their Caliphate is almost non-existent, and their numbers have shrunk to about 1000 fighters. Of course, the Democrats will say that was due to the policies that Obama put into place. Remember if something good happens, it is because of Obama, if something wrong happens it is the fault of some Republican.

Now about the Stock Market. Although the Stock Market is now at an all-time high, I refuse to attribute that to Trump even as I refused to give Obama credit for the gains he saw during his eight years. I believe that the Stock Market is manipulated by the Federal Reserve artificially holding down interest rates. Sure the price of the stock goes up under that policy, but the value of the common man's savings accounts goes down. How many of you get even one percent interest on your savings accounts? I know that I haven't seen a penny of interest on my savings since the housing bubble burst in the last year of George Bush's presidency.

But overall, we have seen a lot of winning under President Trump. But I, for one, am not tired of winning just yet. But then we lost so much under Obama that having a winner in the White House seems right for a change. Mr. President, keep on winning. We the American people can take it.

January 8, 2018

A Short History of a Once Great Nation

Once upon a time, there was a great country founded on the principle that if you worked really hard, you would have the opportunity to succeed. There was no guarantee that you would succeed only that you would have such an opportunity. It worked exceedingly well for some time. Some men and women built businesses in the large towns and cities, and others went into the wilderness to forge out land that they could call their own. Some of them got rich, and others did not fare as well, but no one blamed the rich people for the misfortunes of the poor.

At some point, the rich people in the north of the country got angry with the rich people in the south of the country, and before long half, a million Americans died of their wounds. A tall homely man in a black hat came along to lead the rich people of the north. In the process, he appointed a drunk to be the head of the northern army and before the booze ran out, the southern people were whipped. Now should have come the time for healing but an actor decided to kill the tall homely man with the black hat and his successor proved to be corrupt, and the rich people in the north were able to make sure that only those people who were on the side of the north could become rich. So many of the lazy people who lived in the north put their few belongings in carpet bags and headed south where they were given the money and property of those who used to own it.

The successor to the man in the black hat was not re-elected, but in his stead, the drunk who led the army of the north was put in his place. He was just as corrupt as his predecessor, and so no healing took place during his presidency. And the lazy northern poor were still given what the rich southern people had worked hard to get. About this time, many people discovered that hard work was not the secret to success but rather knowing someone in power was the secret to success. Why work if someone would give you something just because you supported them?

For some time, after that, no great leader stepped forward, or if they did, they were not elected. I believe this because I don't know anyone who has any idea what the next 6 or 7 presidents did while they were in office. Then along came someone who is best known for his charge up San Juan Hill. He decided that corporations were evil, and if you had a lot of money, it should be taken away from you and given to those that did not have so much money. You no longer had to be a wealthy southerner for the government to divest you of your money, you just needed to be rich.

I am not sure what the next president did although he is best known for being so fat that someone had to pry him out of the White House bathtub.

Then along came what we would today call the first real socialist president. This great American found even better ways to steal from those who had as well as those who did not have. He enacted the Income Tax so that everyone that had any money of any kind would have to give it to the government. And he also created the Federal Reserve so that he could manipulate how much the money he stole from the people would be worth.

The beautiful thing was that you did not have to be Republican or Democrat to be evil, you just had to be president. For the corrupt man that took the place of the tall homely man with the black hat was a Democrat, the drunk that took his place was a Republican as was the one who charged up San Juan Hill, and then the income tax creator was a Democrat. So until this point in history, both parties were really good at taking money from some people and giving it to other people. Of course, most of the money they received from others went into their own pockets or the pockets of their friends and family.

And another funny thing happened back there. The members of the House and Senate used to work together, usually for their own good and to the detriment of the people but work together none-the-less.

So this gets you up to date on the first hundred years or so of the history of the once upon a time nation. Frankly, I am too worn out to finish the story. Perhaps some of you other storytellers could take over for me.

January 31, 2018

One Fantastic State of the Union

This was perhaps the best State of the Union Address that I have ever heard. President Donald Trump addressed the nation and told everyone about things that few except for the most hardcore Democrats could disagree with and yet the Democrats sat and scowled.

He talked about renewed prosperity as a result of fewer regulations. When he was campaigning, he promised to rescind 2 regulations for everyone that was enacted and most of us cheered. But in fact, he has repealed 23 regulations for each new one passed, and the Democrats sat and scowled.

He talked about thousands of dollars given to thousands of workers in the form of bonuses and raises because of the tax bill just passed. That is money that only a rich Democrat from California could refer to as crumbs. And the Democrats sat and scowled.

He talked about helping those that protect us every day. Those included our military, police officers, firefighters, and border patrol agents. He even had examples in the audience of some that had demonstrated extreme heroism. And the Democrats sat and scowled.

He talked about a compromise on immigration that should have brought cheers from the left because it was far beyond what most of us on the right wanted to give up. And the Democrats sat and scowled because he wanted to secure the border and end foolish immigration policies so that we would not have to revisit the same issue in the future.

On the one hand, I am greatly heartened from listening to a great President promising and delivering great things for the United States. On the other hand, I am extremely disheartened from watching opposing politicians that acted more like petulant children than leaders.

For all you folks that are clamoring for a One World Government, just remember the sight half of that gallery scowling at messages that everyone should cheer. If we as a country cannot come together when we are talking about things that everyone should agree on, how can you expect to get 4 billion people, many of whom have been at each other's throats for thousands of years to agree to live together in peace?

February 5, 2018

How many pages is enough?

We all know that the Democrats have a difficult time explaining themselves using a few words. Take the health care law that they passed for President Obama. It was 2700 pages long (probably to keep anyone from reading it).

So now the Republicans have drafted a four-page memo to show that the Obama administration used a dossier paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign to get a FISA warrant to spy on an American citizen that was a minor advisor to the Trump campaign.

That caused the Democrats to draft a 10-page memo to show that the Republican memo had left out 2 words that if they had been included would have changed the narrative.

That will mean the Republicans will have to draft a 6-page memo defending their omission of the 2 words that the Democrats thought were important enough to draft their 10-page memo.

Of course, the Democrats will then have to draft a 20-page memo attacking the Republican 6-page memo as being inaccurate in their defense of the omission of the 2 words.

This will go back and forth until finally, a 9000-page memo will be issued so that no one will be able to read it. And by that time, no one will remember that Trump did not collude with the Russians and that no law was broken by anyone in the entire process.

February 7, 2018

What Law was broken by Donald Trump

I feel the urge to go on another one of my rants. Watching "The Five" on Fox News tonight, once again I hear Juan Williams state that President Trump is attacking the FBI as a means of impeding the Mueller investigation. When he was corrected, the entire panel saying that nobody is attacking the FBI, only the five or six people that were complicit in whitewashing the Hillary Clinton crimes against America, he said that Trump is afraid of the Russia investigation and he is trying to shut it down. The left is convinced that the President is guilty of something although they cannot specify exactly what.

The President fired James Comey, and immediately the left started screaming that was obstruction of justice. Lies, more lies, and damn lies. Did the President have the right to fire Comey? Yes! Was it obstruction of justice? No! How do we know? Because the investigation did not come to an end with the firing of Comey. In fact, if he had wanted to interfere with the Russian probe, he would have left Comey in charge. The man had already proven that he was incapable of conducting a serious investigation when he wrote a memo exonerating Hillary Clinton before ever interviewing her. To obstruct justice, Trump would have had to fire the entire team working on the Russian probe. Did he do that? No!

Now, for the more pressing question, what law if any was broken to warrant an investigation that has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and is almost 2 years old at this point, with no end in sight? The answer is that no law was broken by then-candidate Donald Trump. Even if he had taken a plane to Moscow, took a cab to the Kremlin and gained a personal audience with Putin, in which he asked for information on Hillary Clinton; that would not be against any law. They call it collusion, but collusion is not against the law.

It is time to call this witch hunt to a close. Certainly, Mueller with the massive staff and unlimited budget that he has could have come up with something, by now, if there was anything to come up with. That is particularly true in this age of constant surveillance of almost every man woman and child on the face of the earth.

And look at the man that they are centering on as being the mastermind of this huge secret. Has Donald Trump ever been accused of keeping secrets? If he had colluded with the Russians, don't you think there would have been five thousand Trump tweets that would have proven him guilty?

I am fed up with the nonsense of Russian collusion. If there has been a crime, committed, then please tell us what the crime was. If not, then sit down and shut up.

February 16, 2018

Gun Control is not the Answer

Once again, we are embroiled in the debate over whether to outlaw guns in our society. We got here because once again, a troubled young man decided that he wanted to gain attention by killing a large number of innocent children. The gun did not load itself, walk to the car, get in, buckle its seatbelt, start the engine, drive to the school, get out, walk to the school and decide to start shooting anything in front of it. But it is easier to blame the inanimate object than to blame the evil that we have allowed to permeate our lives and the lives of our children.

That evil began when we decided that we do not need God in our lives. That evil continued when we decided that it was easier to believe that we evolved from monkeys or apes than to think that we were created in the image of a living, loving God. Think about it, if that young man had been brought up to believe that his life and all lives had value not only to those that love them but to a loving God as well, it would have been difficult for him to decide to end all those lives.

That evil has grown with the invention of media that glorifies violence and killing. When our children are inundated daily with seeing images of people being shot, stabbed, blown up and otherwise murdered as a means of entertainment, it is perhaps difficult for them to separate entertainment from reality.

I have listened to this debate all morning, hoping that someone would address the real problem but not one time has the word "morals" been mentioned. I do not care what legislation you pass. You could remove every gun from every person in the world, and if you do not change the way we look at one another, people will still find evil ways to do evil things. The problem is not guns. The problem is that we have as a whole, become an amoral society. Even people that believe strongly in their faith in God are being forced to violate their beliefs or lose their ability to make a living.

No, the problem is not guns. The problem is a lack of morals. The problem is a lack of discipline for our young people. The problem was Dr. Spock and his idea that if you correct a child, it is abuse. The problem was Charles Darwin and his belief that we came from monkeys, not from a loving God. No amount of legislation is going to solve this problem because it is not possible to legislate morality.

But as long as the discussion is about guns and not about morality, this problem will never be solved.

February 24, 2018

Baseball or Politics

 A good friend suggested that people talk about baseball instead of politics. I guess that he is tired of all the divisiveness that we see daily and I can certainly empathize with him on that.

Now I have to tell you that when I was a kid, I loved baseball. The New York Yankees were my team, and Mickey Mantle was my hero. I didn't get a chance to play the game nearly as much as I wanted to because those darned cows had to be milked twice a day, fed twice a day, and have their gutters cleaned every day. And of course, there was haying in the summer and too much snow in the winter to play baseball in.

I did, however, fashion a bat out of some leftover lumber from my father's lumber mill that he had purchased to cut lumber for an addition to our barn. With that and an unlimited amount of stones from the gravel road that ran by our house, I could pretend to be Mickey Mantle as I threw up a stone and hit it with that homemade bat. There was a pond across from our house and a stone that went in a quarter way on a line was a single, halfway a double, three quarters a triple and over the pond a home run. One stone that went through the barn window was a problem.

Now I said that the New York Yankees was my team. I can honestly say that if you asked me about most other teams I would not have had a clue. We didn't have television, and I doubt that very many games were televised back then regardless. I did listen as often as I could on the radio. We had a huge tube radio in the barn, and when we were working out there sometime, we could find a game to listen to.

Of course, we did get a daily paper, although it was a day late being delivered. When I got a chance, I would read the sports page and glean whatever information about the Yankees that I could.

In fact, I remember getting in a little trouble with my history teacher, one time. He was trying to hold me up to an example to the class since I excelled in that subject. He looked at me and said I bet Simmes reads the paper since all good history students do. I said, "You bet, I read the sports section and the comics religiously." Well, as you might expect, I didn't retain the moniker of "teacher's pet."

Of course, I did know a little bit about other teams and their stars. Cleveland had Rocky Colavito, the Giants has Willy Mays, and the Dodgers had Duke Snyder. There was always an argument about who had the best centerfielder.

So you see it should be easy for me to talk about baseball, but it isn't. Money has ruined the game. Very few players play the game just because of their love for it like Mantle did. I read a story one time about how Mantle after his triple crown winning season went into the Yankees front office and asked for a raise. They told him that while he had a great season, they couldn't reward him for it by raising his salary since it might have been just a "flash in the pan." So Mantle went out and had another great year, in fact, some say it was a better year than his triple crown accomplishment. The next spring, he went back in and again asked for a raise. It was denied they said because he didn't win the triple crown again. Mickey told them that if they didn't give him a raise that he was going to 'hold out". They said to him that if he did that they would trade him to the Indians for Rocky Colavito. He said, "of course I didn't hold out. If they had only known, I would have played for nothing. I loved the game that much." That story endeared me even more to whom I consider being the greatest all-around baseball player that ever played the game. His career stats don't bear that out, but keep in mind he played all most his entire career on bad legs.

But at some point, money ruined the great game of baseball. Once free agency came along, and a player could move to where ever the money was best, the game died. You see, I think that baseball is a game to be played by and for kids. When I got old enough to drive, I would go to the big city, Jamestown, New York, and watch the Jamestown Tigers play on Sundays. You could get a ticket to a doubleheader for 65 cents. And a hotdog and soda didn't cost you an arm and a leg. I have no idea what tickets cost today, but I imagine good ones, you would have to mortgage the farm to afford. Very few people can afford to take the kids to a game today. Add in the price of parking and food, and you have the price of a vacation.

I just looked it up, and the average ticket price in 2017 to go to a Cub's game was $160. That was the top, and Chicago White Sox were low at $30. Isn't it ironic that there should be such a difference in the same city?

Some of the problems are the fault of greedy owners. That cannot be denied. We should always remember that the "Black Sox Scandal" happened because the White Sox owner failed to pay his players what he had promised them. But most of the blame goes directly to free agency and the greed that it spawned. The very worst player in the major leagues today make five times more than Mantle did. And the highest-paid player in 2017 made over 35 and a half million dollars. That is completely ludicrous. How many cars can that man drive? How many houses can he live in? And how many kids cannot go to see him play because of it and others like him?

I quit watching baseball a long time ago. Looking back I probably should have stopped watching when Reggie Jackson announced that if it weren't for the money, he wouldn't ever play a game.

I have no idea who the stars of today are. And I believe it would be hard to follow a team today since the roster on closing day would look nothing like the roster on opening day the following years. I will admit to weakness. I did watch the home run derby during last year's all-star game. It was quite a show put on by the young player from the Yankees and the young player from the Marlins. I was shocked recently when I found out that the very same Marlin's player is now on the Yankees. Can you imagine what would have happened if Mantle and Mays had a home run derby and the next year they were traded? Why there would have been rioting in the streets. But today fans take it all in stride. They do not expect that their favorite player will stay with the team for their entire career. Patrick, what happened to Albert Puloltz?

February 25, 2018

Baseball

Apparently, Major League Baseball's opening day must be just around the corner since I am seeing articles about the best 20 major league pitchers of all time and the best 20 hitters of all time. Of course, I am just dumb enough to read them all. I don't follow baseball anymore, but I once did. In fact, I loved the game. So I read those lists and reasons why they pick one player over another. But here is my problem. There is no way to adequately compare players from the distant past against players of today.

Even if you take out performance-enhancing drugs, there is no comparison between the conditions of today and those that existed in the early 20th century or the latter part of the 19th.

But curiosity did overtake me, and so I began comparing lists. You might be surprised to find that there are dozens of different lists, and each one of them had different people at the top and the bottom. For instance, there was a list put out by Ted Williams, and he left his own name off the greatest hitters of all time. Now I like a man with humility but not to the point of the ridiculous. Another list left Pete Rose off. Now I understand the argument that he bet on baseball, and that must be a terrible thing, but it had nothing to do with how he hit a baseball. And hit them he did, over 4200 of them during his career, more than any other player that ever played. To leave him off a list of the best hitters is almost blasphemy.

Now, in my opinion, Babe Ruth was probably the best hitter that ever played the game. Oh, I know that Hank Aaron and Barry Bonds hit more home runs than he did, but they played in different conditions than did the Babe. And I am not talking about the steroids that Bonds obviously used.

You see when the Babe played the game, they didn't use a new baseball every time that one got a little bit of dirt or a dent on the horsehide. In fact, in his early days, they didn't replace the baseball as long as it still had the cover on it. Even if the seams had started coming apart, the ball stayed in play. Imagine what a pitcher could make a baseball do if the aero-dynamics were altered in such a way. I remember Yogi Berra talking about how he used to press the ball down in the dirt and get a little mud on it before throwing it back to Whitey Ford. He said Whitey could make that thing do anything but whistle Dixie.

And of course, a ball with a loose cover wouldn't go nearly as far as a new one. How many home runs do you think Ruth would have hit if he had a new ball every time he came up to bat?

And so we might look at the same thing when it comes to pitchers. One might surmise that playing with a damaged ball might make it easier for them, and it probably did. But then you might consider that those men didn't pitch every 4th or 5th day. Most of them pitched every other day, and sometimes every day. And they didn't have relief pitchers to bail them out.

On top of that, they didn't have the luxuries that players have today. They didn't hop on an airplane to go to their next city. Sometimes they would take the train and sometimes they would take an old bus. And they seldom got days off. If there was a break in the schedule, they would invariably have an exhibition game to play. And they didn't sit out doubleheaders either.

In addition, they didn't have the plush facilities that players have today. Most of the pitchers were lucky if they got a tub of ice water to soak their elbows after the game.

So trying to compare, Sandy Kofax with Walter Johnson, or Mariano Rivera with Cy Young isn't feasible. Yes, all those people were on one list, but Nolan Ryan was not.

I am sure that all of you have your own list of your favorite players. And each list is just a subjective as the ones I have been reading. If you are still following baseball, enjoy this season. Maybe some of today's players will be on someone's list of the best players of all time.

February 27, 2018

Do we need an assault weapons ban?

We are continually hearing people screaming for the ban on assault weapons. What they probably should know is that assault weapons have been banned for decades in most of the United States. Of course, even that statement is not strictly true. It is possible to get a permit from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Department to own an automatic weapon. But I seriously doubt our common criminal element is going to go through the red tape.

Here are the characteristics that a rifle would have to have to be considered an assault rifle.

  * It must be capable of selective fire.

  * It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifles, such as the 92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.

  * Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]

  * It must have an effective range of at least 300 meters (330 yards).

So we might ask is the AR-15 an assault rifle? Many people refer to it as such, probably because its name begins with AR which they assume means assault rifle. It does not. It stands for Armalyte Rifle after the original manufacturer of the weapon.

Now with that out of the way, let's see if the AR-15 meets the criteria for being an assault rifle. Notice the first point, it must be capable of selective fire. That means that the shooter can select between fully automatic fire and a three-round burst. The Ar-15 does not have the capability to do either. It is a semi-automatic rifle, meaning it fires one round with each pull of the trigger. You can argue about the other characteristics, but since to be considered an assault weapon, it has to meet all those characteristics, the Ar-15 is not an assault rifle.

But that brings us to the scary thing. Our politicians have no idea what does or does not constitute an assault weapon, and so they try to make up their own rules when they want to ban something.

Here is how California wants to define what an assault weapon is for their proposed ban:

**12276.1** (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

  1. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

    1. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.

    2. A thumbhole stock.

    3. A folding or telescoping stock.

    4. A grenade launcher or flare launcher.

    5. A flash suppressor.

    6. A forward pistol grip.

  2. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

  3. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of fewer than 30 inches.

  4. A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

    1. A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.

    2. (B) A second handgrip.

    3. A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.

    4. The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

  5. A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

  6. A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:

    1. A folding or telescoping stock.

    2. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.

  7. A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

  8. Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

You notice they are not taking any chances. They do not say that a weapon has to meet all the specifications, they say it only has to meet one specification.

Any time that a government seeks to ban something, it is wise to step back and figure out their motives. I believe that the efforts to ban assault weapons is only the first step in disarming the entire population. And remember how that worked out for various elements of the country of Germany when Hitler did it.

There was a bumper sticker around in the late 1900s that read, "I love my country, but I fear my government." The right to bear arms is not just for protection against common criminals. As it mentions "militia" it is also to protect us from organized threats, such as the terrorists that we have allowed into our country under the guise of being refugees and perhaps against those that are trying to overthrow our democracy from within.

I believe that President Trump may be the last vestige of hope against the latter.

March 2, 2018

Do you still support President Trump?

I realize that I am going to anger most Trump supporters if in fact, not all of them when I write this article. And saying that I also understand that I do not have much of a choice when the 2020 election comes around since I could never vote for a socialist or a communist and that is the entire Democratic Party.

And I have to admit that Trump's actions yesterday regarding tariffs does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling in my stomach. I also have to admit that I am not enough of an economist to know for sure whether those tariffs will lead to higher prices (I believe that they will) for almost everything that is made with steel or aluminum, cars are a prime example. But I also know that he ran on doing just that and I voted for him, so I guess I have to take the good with the bad.

What he did not run on, nor did I vote for him knowing he would do it, is his stance on gun control. When he announced that the age for purchasing a weapon should be raised to 21, I was appalled. It is okay to send our young people off to war, for them to take up arms to protect our country but it is not alright for those same young people and millions of others like them to have their right to buy a gun to defend themselves and their families be taken away from them. And it might be interesting to note that only one of these mass shootings has been carried out by someone under the age of 21. That person was 20 and used his mother's gun to do the deed. So raising the age to 21 would do absolutely nothing to prevent further shootings.

And now he had come out in favor of including a ban on assault weapons in Diane Feinstein's gun control bill. Now if you actually want to prevent ordinary citizen's from buying actual assault weapons (those that are either fully automatic or capable of firing three-round bursts with one pull of the trigger), I wouldn't argue too loudly against that. But, if he includes "assault-style weapons) I will scream no at the top of my lungs. It is just a few words from banning automatic weapons to banning all semi-automatic weapons. The sad part is that much of our population does not realize that every police officer in the country carries a semi-automatic weapon, and almost every handgun carried by the populace is a semi-automatic weapon. I did not vote for President Trump just to have him strip the 2nd amendment of any meaning.

When he told Mike Pence yesterday that he thought we should take people's guns away from them before any type of due process that was something that I cannot and will not sanction. No one's rights should be infringed upon without due process. If a person has made threats, they can be arrested and have their day in court, but for some government agency to storm their house in the middle of the night, like some Gestapo agency to remove their Constitutionally protected right to bear arms, is a travesty.

I understand that the President is probably trying to please everyone when he does and says these things. After all, he wrote, "The Art of the Deal." But there are some things that when put into a deal makes the deal unpalatable. His stance on gun control is one of those things for me.

March 5, 2018

Did you watch the Oscars?

It was many years ago when I realized that a Movie winning Oscars and being a good movie was miles apart. I was a young man, and I believed that if a Moving Picture won a lot of Oscars, it had to be worth my hard-earned money to go see it. So when I heard of a picture that had won 9 Oscars I just had to rush out to my local theater with my wife to see this fantastic movie.

It was entitled "They Shoot Horses Don't They." I had no idea what it was about. I figured it must have horses in it and therefore might be a Western. Well, to my surprise and dismay, it did not have any horses in it and no action of any time. It was about marathon dancing and for two hours (it seemed like 22 hours) we watched people hang onto each other and pretend to be dancing.

Maybe that is why it won so many academy awards. It must have been realistic because I felt as exhausted when the show ended as those contestants must have.

It was then that I realized that winning an Oscar did not make a movie great or even passably good. The Academy apparently has its own standards of greatness that ordinary folk does not understand. I am positive that nobody who went to that movie thought it was anything but utterly boring. At least those that were in the theater sleeping with us did.

From time to time over the years, I have wasted a few hours watching the presentations of the academy awards. Like getting drunk and having a terrible hangover, a grown man has to do things like that every once in a while to remind himself that he should not.

I guess if you are an avid moviegoer, you might want to root for your favorite movie or your favorite actor or actress. And if that is the case and you can stand to sit through the mindless drivel of people you have no common ground with telling you who you should vote for, I guess it is alright.

I haven't gone to the theater to see a movie in years. I just cannot see shelling out 20 or more dollars to get into the theater and then another 10 dollars for something to munch on while I am there. Popcorn takes about 2 minutes in the microwave, and you can find almost any movie you want to see on Youtube. And you don't need some pompous ass to tell you whether you enjoyed the movie or not.

March 7, 2018

Is This Why Islam is Winning?

Today as I was driving to the grocery store, I was listening to Glen Beck on the radio. He was talking about the decline of Christianity in American life. He said that while 80% of Americans professed to be Christian, only about 20% admitted to actually practicing that religion. I know that some of you will find that to be surprising, but what I find remarkable is that there are that many that believe they are following the example of Christ.

There was a time when people started their day with a prayer before breakfast, gave thanks to God before each meal, and ended the day with prayer before retiring for the night. Children were taught to read from the Bible and were informed about the goodness that God had bestowed on them.

But that is so far in the past that it is hard to recall to mind. At some point, we stopped believing in God and turned ourselves over to the God of science. Now any mention of God or Christ in school is followed by the screams of separation of church and state. And incidentally, that phrase is nowhere to be found in our Constitution. But somewhere along the way, we began to believe that those words were embedded into our Government and that any mention of God was against some manmade law.

Now how does that contrast with the greatest danger that faces us today? I had the opportunity to visit Saudi Arabia, shortly after the first Gulf War. I went there to do some business with the Royal Family and got a firsthand view of their way of life.

And at this point, I do want to let you know that getting into that country is far different from the open borders that we have in the United States. To get an 8 day Visa, I had to be sponsored by a member of the Royal family and had to sign a paper saying that I agreed to be beheaded if I was found to have drugs or alcohol in my possession while in the Kingdom. I was also warned that severe consequences would befall me if I were to criticize any member of the Royal family or George Bush.

So back to my main point. While we were there, I observed that the people were required to cease all activities, five times each day to pray to Allah. It was not required for outsiders, such as me to participate, but we were expected to stand quietly while the prayer was offered. The citizens did not have a choice. Under severe penalty, they were required to participate.

So while our Government is moving further and further away from supporting the Freedom of Religion that is guaranteed in our Constitution, they are indoctrinating their people from the time that they are born in their religion.

And keep in mind that we are bringing thousands upon thousands of these devout people into our country every year, under the guise of being refugees. While our children move further away from God, theirs move closer to Allah and his teachings of killing the infidel. And it would do well to remember that unless you are living under Sharia Law, you are the infidel.

March 6, 2018

Every American should be outraged!

Because the Democrats were positive that Donald Trump could not possibly have won the 2016 Presidential election without the help of an outside source, specifically the Russians, they insisted that a special counsel should be appointed to look into the matter.

Robert Mueller who had been at one-time Director of the FBI got the position. Most Americans did not put up too much of a stink at that time since they also wanted to know if the Russians had managed to get someone elected to the highest office in the land.

So now, many months later, billions of dollars spent and an untold amount of man-hours, Mueller managed to indict 13 Russians for having Twitter accounts and for some of them dressing up as Hillary Clinton in an orange jumpsuit.

That should have been the end of the matter. Mueller should have admitted that he failed to find any connection between Trump and the Russians and closed the books on a failed investigation. What was discovered beyond a reasonable doubt is that Hillary Clinton and her cohorts did, in fact, enlist the Russians in attempting to undermine the Trump Campaign. But of course, Mueller did not bother to indict her or any Democrats for that since if he had he probably would have been found on a park bench having shot himself numerous times in the back of the head. No one brings charges against the Clintons and lives.

So instead of admitting to being the incompetent oaf that he is, Mueller then began to investigate Trump's finances going back well before he even thought of running for President. And as of now, that line of investigation had found nothing out of the ordinary.

But instead of again admitting that he couldn't find a lighted torch in a dark room, he is now investigating whether there was any connection between the United Arab Emirates and the Trump campaign. At this point, you should be screaming at the top of your lungs, CUT THIS CRAP OUT! What is he going to do when that well runs dry? Is he going to attempt to find a connection between Trump and someone in Canada or Australia or Sweden?

Or perhaps he might investigate if the Mayor of San Antonio might have colluded with Trump for his support. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. End this witch hunt and get back to something important, like cleaning up the organization that Mueller once was the Director of.

March 7, 2018

Has Trey Gowdy Lost His Mind?

Because President Trump made a huge mistake and appointed Jeff Sessions as the Attorney General we ended up with Robert Mueller as a special counsel to investigate something that never happened. And yet millions of dollars later the witch hunt continues with no end in sight. And honestly, I doubt that as long as Donald Trump is President of the United States that this farce will ever end.

So now, Trey Gowdy says we need another special counsel to investigate the investigators. Or at least it seems that way when he mentioned Andy McCabe by name as a possible target of this new special counsel.

So one must ask, why do we have an Attorney General and a Director of the FBI if every time something comes up, we have to appoint someone else to do the investigations?

And here is the real problem, the one that ultimately appoints these fools to investigate (Rod Rosenstein) is still there. We know that we cannot rely on Jeff Sessions to do anything since he apparently has a conflict of interest with anything that could be construed as something illegal.

March 10, 2018

Will the Main Stream Media ever give our President any Credit?

It was not too long ago that the press was complaining about the way President Trump was referring to the North Korean leader. They took exception to his calling Kim, Little Rocket Man and telling him that he needed to cease his rhetoric about sending nuclear missiles our way or he would be met with "fire and fury" the likes the world has never seen before.

So surely the announcement that Kim and President Trump had agreed to sit down and exchange ideas instead of exchanging nuclear missiles was met by the press with open arms, right? Wrong! Now it appears that this was a "spur of the moment" decision made by President Trump without even thinking about the consequences. Why how could he legitimize the rogue regime by actually meeting with them, something that no other American President has done before? There is no way that Trump can be ready for such a meeting, they say. And even if he was prepared he would likely go off script and give away concessions without getting anything in return.

Perhaps they are confusing the author of "The Art of the Deal" with the author of "Dreams of my Father," who got nothing in return for removing the sanctions on Iran and subsequently sent them hundreds of billions of dollars in cash in the middle of the night.

I would like these so-called journalists to remember that people have been saying that Donald Trump could not possibly succeed in so many different things, one of them was becoming President. You may all remember that right up to the day before our Presidential election that there was no possible way that Donald Trump could be elected. But low and behold he was. Of course, they still refuse to accept that result. Somewhere in their mind, Hillary Clinton is actually the President of the United States.

They also said that he could not get tax reform done, and yet he did that as well. Of course, they refused to believe what most of us know that it benefitted far more than just the top 1% of the population.

The thousands of dollars in bonuses that were given to thousands of individuals because of the tax reform package were much more than "crumbs" as Nancy Pelosi called them. No one person that received those "crumbs" sent them back, and most were vocally thankful to President Trump for them.

Just yesterday the jobs report came out, and it was far better than anyone had forecast having 313,000 new jobs added. In fact, the thing that was more impressive than anything else was the fact that over 151 million Americans were working, more than at any time in our history.

Surely this was a front-page story lauding the accomplishments of a man that had only been in office a little over a year. Not even close! In fact, I heard some pundits giving credit to our former President who apparently wasn't able to get the job done during his administration somehow had set the ball rolling so the new rookie President could accomplish the feat.

I am reasonably sure that if Donald Trump walked on water to save a drowning man, the headlines would read, Trump, is responsible for starving the sharks.

March 10, 2018

Don't Forget to Lose an Hour's Sleep Tonight!

They call it daylight savings time, but it is not. There are the same numbers of daylight hours, no matter how you choose to set your clocks. If you set your clocks ahead one hour tonight as most states mandate that you do, you do not gain an hour of daylight tomorrow.

For instance, if you live in southern Ohio, today the sun rose at 6:57 and will set at 6:38 for hours of sunlight of 11 hours and 41 minutes. Because you chose to set your clocks ahead one hour, tomorrow the sun will rise at 7:56 and set at 7:39. That means you have 11 hours and 43 minutes of sunlight.

You will notice that you gained 4 minutes of sunlight, not one hour and it had nothing to do with your setting your clocks ahead. You will gain a few minutes the next day and each day until June 21, and then you will start to lose a few minutes each day.

What this does accomplish is to totally screw up my schedule for a few days until I adjust to the change. I will still go to bed at the same time and arise at the same time by my clock but not by my biological clock.

So one might ask, why do we go through this farce twice every year? I remember living in Arizona, where they did not observe daylight savings time, and how people thought that we were backward. I remember writing a letter to the editor where I insisted that Arizonans weren't backward, the rest of the country was, and I still believe that.

Daylight Savings Time started supposedly to conserve fuel shortly after World War I and then was reinstituted during World War II. Once the war ended, it went away for several years. During the gas shortages of the 1970s, it was made a national law, but a few states opted out and were granted exceptions.

Now I still can't figure out how you save energy by burning more of it in the morning and less of it at night but someone more brilliant than I am somehow figured that out. And if we are honest, there is no longer an energy shortage in the United States. We have enough gasoline and natural gas to last us for our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our great-grandchildren.

But I imagine someone will point out to me that Daylight Savings Time will somehow save a polar bear or stop the rising tides issues they deem far more critical than my screwed up schedule.

March 11, 2018

When Will The Lunacy Stop?

A coffee shop in California is refusing to serve uniformed police officers. The Hasta Muerte Coffee Company says that it's keeping the peace by not serving cops. They further stated that they needed the help of the community, not the police in keeping their shop safe.

Now I know that many of you will be screaming for a lawsuit against this place of business, and there may well be a case to be made for that. I am not one to join you. I believe that a place of business has the absolute right to serve whomever they want as long as they are not taking government money. For instance, I think that a cake maker has the absolute right not to have to violate their religious beliefs by making a cake that endorses homosexuality if they find it to be a violation of their religious beliefs.

So if this business owner does not want to serve uniformed police officers and they are in no way supported by Federal, State, or Local tax dollars, they have that right.

However, I find their stance to be not only offensive but ludicrous. They say they need the public to keep their place of business safe, but California has done everything in their power to disarm the populace. So when the armed robbers come to call, who is going to be able to protect them? Are they going to call on Black Lives Matter to come to their aid or do you think they will dial 911 and beg for a couple of those uniformed officers to come to their aid? Just don't expect them to give those officers a cup of coffee when they arrive.

How in the world does having a few armed and uniformed police officers do anything but bring a sense of tranquility to the customers in that shop unless of course, those customers are lawbreakers? Is there a possibility that many of the customers might be illegal immigrants? But wait California is a sanctuary state, where the police are forbidden to enforce immigration law. So even those should not be afraid of the police.

This lunacy has gone far enough. Sure there are a few bad cops out there, but the vast majority are good and decent people that believe in the slogan "protect and serve."

March 13, 2018

No Collusion?

I try so hard not to get my hopes up, but when I heard that the House Intel Committee that has been investigating for almost two years and had spent millions of dollars trying to determine whether the Trump campaign did anything wrong, announced that they found no collusion I threw a huge party attended by just my wife and me.

But now in the light of day, my hangover is not because of alcohol, which I stopped drinking a few years ago, but rather from trying to decipher the report. First, as we all know, Congress cannot say anything in just a few words. So, of course, this report is 150 pages long. I challenge any of you to read 150 pages of anything drafted by a congressional committee and not fall sound asleep. They have a unique knack for turning exciting news into tedious details.

Second, this was a report drafted by just one side of this committee. Surely if these esteemed public servants had been working together instead of working against each other, they could have come to some agreement after two years. But that is not the way our government works anymore. We are more divided than we have been at any time since 1861.

Thirdly this report will not even be released to the general public for several months. Unquestionably after two years, they could have come out with something for immediate release to the populace.

And one last thing. Apparently, they had to hedge their bets. They refused to say that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, but rather that there was no evidence of collusion between either campaign and Russia. That left the door open for all those folks that will never accept that our President is legitimate. And the Democrats were quick to jump in and say that the Republicans on that committee never looked very hard to find what the Democrats knew all along, that Hillary Clinton should be our President.

Of course, we still have a Senate investigation and a special counsel investigation that is continuing. And there is a call for Jeff Sessions to appoint another special counsel, to investigate the first special counsel. So for you folks that are still rooting for some evidence that the Trump Campaign did something nefarious and illegal to win the 2016 Presidential election, these investigations will probably still be going on during most of the lives of your grandchildren.

March 15, 2018

Did the Firing of Rex Tillerson cause the loss of a House seat?

Most of you know that I have been a staunch supporter of our President. I believe that he has done more for the country in the past year or so than most presidents did in their entire terms of office. However, it does strike me strange that He would fire Rex Tillerson on the day before a special election in Pennsylvania to fill an open House of Representatives seat.

The Republican candidate only lost by a couple of hundred votes and surely like me there were more than a couple hundred people that were dismayed by the President's actions. If you were trying to close a major deal, would you fire one of the major players just before the signing ceremony? I think not. And surely the man who wrote the "Art of the Deal" knows that. Why not wait until Wednesday when that election was over to share such a major announcement. I can't imagine that the action got one positive vote, but it probably garnered a few thousand negative ones.

We are entering an extremely dangerous time for our country. If we lose the house in the fall, there is a real possibility that the Democrats may try to overturn the 2016 election by bringing impeachment charges against Trump. And if heaven forbid we lose the Senate, He may well be convicted and become the first President in history to be removed from office.

And even more dangerous is that several Supreme Court members are getting to the age where they will retire, die or become unable to serve. With a Democrat Senate, our Republic may well be lost.

Please, Mr. President, I know you have the right to choose who you want in key positions, but before you make significant decisions, please think about the overall consequences before you act.

March 23, 2018

Do you always follow instructions?

It seems that for the past couple of days all the talk on the internet has been about President Trump calling Putin to congratulate him on winning the election in Russia. Now we know, and President Trump knows that Putin was the only real candidate, so no doubt would win. However, I am sure that it is a protocol for our President to call and offer congratulations regardless. Obama did the same thing the last time Putin won a rigged election.

But this time apparently some of Trump's advisors told him not to call, and that fact got leaked to the press. So every news media in the world is saying that Trump must be either stupid or stubborn because he ignored the advice that was given to him. And there are some reports that Trump is livid with the leakers. Of course, since almost nothing is ever kept secret in Washington, I would think that he would be used to it by now.

So I have to ask you, do you always follow the advice given you by those that are in your intimate circle? It seems to me that from the dawn of time, advice has been given and advice has been ignored. Perhaps the first case was "from every tree in the garden you may eat, but as for the tree of good and bad, you must not eat from it." And they ate from it anyway.

Or perhaps we might look to Julius Caesar when he was told to beware the Ides of March. He ignored that advice as well.

I am sure that someone told Harry Truman that it might be a bad idea to drop two atomic bombs on Japan, but he did it anyway.

Someone probably told President Kennedy that riding in an open car in a parade in Dallas was not a good idea and look how that turned out.

I am reasonably sure that someone told President Nixon that trying to cover up his associate's crimes in bugging the DNC at the Watergate Hotel was a bad idea, and yet he was forced to resign because he ignored the advice.

More than likely, someone tried to talk President Reagan out of exchanging arms for hostages, but that advice went unheeded as well.

I imagine that Ted Kennedy was admonished not to drink and drive on more than one occasion, but a young woman lost her life because he failed to follow that counsel.

I am sure that someone tried to tell President Bill Clinton, that coercing a young intern into giving him oral sex in the Oval Office was not the best idea in the world. And yet he did.

So judging from the above examples, President Trump calling another world leader to congratulate him on winning an election is a minor thing, in my opinion.

I can look back on my life, and I am sure you can look back on yours and think of a dozen or so examples of being given advice that you failed to heed. Or perhaps you have led a more perfect life than I.

March 24, 2018

Who is to blame for the spending bill?

The first point that needs to be made is that every time the government does something truly horrible, it is always on a Friday. That is because the average American's attention span does not last for more than one or two days. So if you put the screws to us on Friday, we will have forgotten it before the weekend is over. So before I forget what I was going to write about, I guess I better get back to it.

Ah, yes, there it is, the spending bill. I don't believe it is necessary to debate whether the bill was good or bad. Two things prove that it was a disaster. One, it was over 2000 pages long. The only reason for a bill to be that long is to hide the crimes. And secondly, Chuck Schumer lauded it as a great bill. If that Duffus thinks the bill is great, it has to be wrong.

Trump knew that it was a terrible bill when he said that he would never again sign such a bill.

So who takes the blame for this catastrophe? Well, a lot of people who obviously are die-hard Trump supporters say that it was not his fault. "He had to do it," They say to protect the military. Now personally I don't buy that argument. When you are driving, and you have an accident, the last person that could have avoided the accident but failed to yield is ultimately responsible. Trump was the last person to prevent this bill. He could have vetoed it and sent it back to Congress to be fixed. He did not have to allow them to slip us a huge pay increase for themselves. As far as the military was concerned, that aspect could have been fixed in a few days or weeks. Obama depleted the military years ago. If it stayed that way for a few more days, it would not have been the end of democracy as we have known it. Of course, democracy, as we have known it, ended many years ago, but that would be a topic for another column at a later date.

So I am holding the President responsible, but if you choose not to, I can understand that. As for me, he has two more years to earn back my trust for what I classify as a profound betrayal of that trust. But if you cannot do that, then someone has to be accountable. So if not the last person to avoid the accident, then it must be the ones that set the circumstances for the accident. In this case, it would be the Speaker of the House of Representatives and Senate Majority Leader. They bear the ultimate responsibility for bills that pass their respective chambers.

Now as mentioned before, our collective attention spans do not last for more than a few days at most, so get out your calendars and mark the first Tuesday in November with a note to vote Paul Ryan out of office. It is unfortunate that Mitch McConnell does not come up for reelection until 2020 or you could mark his name down as well. And since most of us do not have calendars that go that far into the future, I guess we will just have to assume that Mitch will do something stupid in that year so that we can get rid of him as well. And judging from the fact that he continually does things to show that he has not one drop of conservative blood running through his veins, I am confident that he will.

This bill cannot go unpunished. Someone has to be held accountable. The place to do that is at your local polling place.

March 26, 2018

What are they protesting?

For most of my life, people have been protesting. It wasn't too long ago that young people were chaining themselves to trees to protest the deforestation of America. It didn't matter to them that the same people that were cutting down adult trees were also replanting new ones. It even didn't matter that if not harvested, those trees would soon die a natural death.

So now students from across America are skipping classes to march to procure a ban on assault weapons. So one might ask if they have a clue as to what an assault weapon is. Fox News sent a reporter out into the field to ask some of these students what they believed an assault weapon was. It is no surprise to me that none of them did. I will guarantee you that if you were to ask 100 adults, what the definition of an assault rifle is, maybe 1 or 2 could come close to an accurate answer. I am not going to do your homework for you by giving you the answer, but I will tell you it has nothing to do with being semi-automatic, meaning one round is fired each time the trigger is pulled. And it has nothing to do with have a collapsible stock, which might make the weapon look cool, but adds no power, accuracy or distance to the weapon.

One student did, however, state that she thought that they were marching for a ban on all firearms. And right there lies the rub. The people behind these protest (and they are not students) ultimate goal is the disarming of the American public. And that was exactly what our forefathers feared when they wrote the second amendment to the constitution.

For they knew the danger in not having weapons for self-defense, not so much against the lone robber coming into your house but against organized opposition to freedom. It wasn't too long before the writing of the constitution that the British had sent armed soldiers to disarm the colonists. Imagine that if the British had been victorious, our national anthem today would be God Save the Queen, instead of the Star Spangled Banner.

And just think that if Hitler had been successful in disarming the Jews before the Second World War, he could have sent his Stormtroopers out to round up millions of Jews, throw them into concentration camps where they could be slaughtered. Oh, right, I remember now, he did.

And today, if we allow these perhaps well-meaning people to take away our right to bear arms, soon we will be living under Sharia Law, or we will be slaughtered by the terrorists that have been allowed to take root in almost every State in the Union, under the guise of being refugees.

I am all for the right of the people to peacefully protest. It is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I do think, however, that someone should explain to the protesters what they are protesting. What they are asking with one right under the Constitution is to take away another right under that same document. They should have been taught by the School Systems or by their parents that no one right takes precedence over another.

March 29, 2018

Is the right to bear arms only for individual self-defense?

Many people have espoused the view that the right to bear arms is not only for individual protection from robbers, murderers, or rapists that might want to do us harm but rather to prevent the overreach of our own government. This was the view of many of our founding fathers as well.

Here is just one such quote: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people is armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."  
– Noah Webster, _An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution_ , October 10, 1787

I saw a post on FaceBook yesterday that said something like this, what good would your guns do you? Do you think you could stand up to the Army?

While I pray that it will never happen something similar was surely said back in the late 1700s. In April of 1775, the British sent troops to Concord in the hopes of confiscating vast supplies of armaments that the colonists had there. When they arrived, they did not find the stores of weapons, but they did find armed colonists who blocked their way. Surely this must have seemed like madness to many people of the time. How in the world could a few ragtag farmers hope to stand up to the best trained and armed army in the world?

Now, in retrospect, that first skirmish did favor the British. Eight colonists were killed that day. But it did spur many others to take up arms for the cause and looking back those ragtag farmers were joined by businessmen, doctors, lawyers, and every other trade. When the smoke finally cleared those proud red-coated soldiers of King George threw up their hands and surrendered.

It is not so much whether we could stand against our own army. Inevitably if the full force of the military were thrown against our populace, the army would be the victors. But one must remember that all of those in uniform have friends and relatives that would be standing before them. Perhaps in one small confrontation, the Army would stay together, but if enough people stood up, maybe they would lose the will to kill their own.

But one thing is sure, if the populace is disarmed, no resistance would be possible.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man is armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."  
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

March 30, 2018

Opening Day, Did you Care?

So much has changed during the course of my life. I can remember when I was a kid, the coming of April meant two equally important events. One the opening day of baseball and two the opening day of trout season.

I guess the latter was a little more important to me since we did not have a television and even if we did, I probably would not have been able to watch the game. I did, however, have a bicycle, and a fishing pole, and the trout stream was only six miles away.

As for my beloved New York Yankees, I would have to wait for the next day when the Jamestown Journal was delivered to the farm so that I could carefully remove the sports page and check up on what the Yanks had done the day before.

And back there, It was reasonably easy to do. There were only 16 teams, so if you cared about them all, there were only 8 box scores to check. And if like me you could care less about the National League there were only 4 box scores that mattered.

And unlike today, you probably had a good idea who was playing on your favorite team. I could count on Mantle playing center, Yogi being behind the plate and Ford would be on the mound. Hank Bauer would be in the right, Moose Skowron at first, Gil McDougal at second, Phil Rizzuto at short and Bob Cerv in left field.

That roster would be there every year unless someone retired.

Today it is almost impossible to keep up with who will be on your team on opening day. Money and free agency have ruined the game, at least for me. I didn't follow the Yankees last year, but I did take a peek at the home run hitting contest from last year's All-Star Game. I watched two of the best long-ball hitters in the game compete, one was from the Yankees, and the other was from the Marlins. I am sure the Marlin fans were dismayed to find that their star would be on the Yankees roster to start this year.

I can only imagine if that type of thing had gone on when I was a young boy. Why there would be no reason to watch the game since, my hero, Mickey Mantle, would probably have been playing for the hated Red Sox or worse yet some National League team.

Money was not the prime reason those men played the game back then. I remember reading about Mantle after he won the Triple Crown in 1956. He went into the Yankees front office and asked for a raise in salary. They told him that they wouldn't give him an increase since they wanted to make sure that his year was not just a fluke. Incidentally his stats that year were .353, 52 home runs and 130 RBIs.

In 1957 he actually hit for a better average, batting 365 but he did not win the Triple Crown. So before the 1958 season, he again went into the Yankee's front office and asked for a raise. They refused to give him one because he had not won the Triple Crown the year before. Mantle told them that he would hold out then. They said to him that if he did, they would trade him to Cleveland for Rocky Colavito. He said, "of course I didn't hold out. If they had only known, I would have played for nothing. I loved the game that much."

I don't know how much a ticket to Yankee Stadium went back in the 1950s, but I imagine you didn't have to mortgage the farm to buy one. I do remember going to Detroit's Minor League team, the Jamestown Tigers in the early 1960s. I could see a Sunday doubleheader for 65 cents and a hot dog, and coke didn't add too much to the tab.

Back then, baseball was a game watched by children and played by children. Today very few families can afford to take their children to a game. Why just the cost of parking would bankrupt most everyday people. I have been watching Ken Burn's documentary about how baseball started in the United States. When they first began organizing teams and leagues, they had a rule that no player could ever be paid. Their reasoning was that money would spoil the game, and now over a hundred and fifty years later, they have been proven right.

I have a dear friend that still loves the game and his St. Louis Cardinals. Patrick, I am sorry your team lost yesterday, but keep up the faith. The Cubs cannot be great forever.

March 30, 2018

Will She Ever Just Go Away?

Hillary Clinton was once again complaining about the election loss yesterday. She said she was offended that some people just want her to go away. She said that she couldn't imagine them saying that to a man that had lost an election.

Well, I can't imagine anyone losing an election and still crying and moaning about it over a year later. Of course, she was disappointed. And for a day or two, I am sure she needed to vent and make excuses for one of the most impossible losses in Presidential Election history.

But then to write a book, giving many excuses for losing and going on an extended road tour to promote the book. And now she is giving speeches touting what she thinks are the reasons that she lost.

  1. Former FBI Director James Comey

  2. Sexism

  3. The Electoral College

  4. Wikileaks and the hacked emails

  5. The right-wing media.

  6. The main-stream media.

  7. The Democratic National Committee.

  8. The Democratic Party]

  9. 1,000 Russian Agents

  10. Vladimir Putin

  11. Donald Trump

  12. Republican-enabled-voter suppression

  13. Citizens-United

  14. FaceBook

  15. Millions of Twitter Bots

  16. Steve Bannon

  17. Netflix

  18. Alt-Right media Info Wars

  19. Bernie Sanders

  20. Suburban Women

  21. Anti-American Forces

  22. Bad Polling

  23. Low-Information Voters

  24. Content Farms in Macedonia

  25. Fake News

  26. Colluding Trump Campaign Officials

  27. Stupid Americans

  28. The Broad assumption she would win (That might be as close to Hillary admitting responsibility as we are going to get).

  29. Goosefer

  30. DC Leaks

  31. Data From the RNC

  32. Deplorables

  33. Team Hillary was too Honest

  34. Married Women can't think for themselves

I am sure there must have been more excuses than that. But back to her line about people just wanting her to go away. Correct me if I am wrong but except for Al Gore's complaining about hanging chads, have you ever seen another candidate for President still complaining about their loss over a year and a half later before.

She says she is going to keep speaking out about the issues, and that is her right. But, I can't remember her saying much about the issues. All she talks about is how she should have been President if only those 31 excuses above hadn't happened.

April 2, 2018

Are you tired of all the protest?

It can be argued that our country was born in protests. After a long bitter war with France, our parent country, Great Briton, was in dire financial straits. It was determined that part of that debt be passed on to the colonies by new forms of taxation. One of those taxes was on tea. The crown believed that the colonist would willingly pay the tax instead of giving up their cup of tea. This was also to try and salvage the British East India Tea Company, which was also in financial trouble. And to make sure that the colonists did not just buy their tea elsewhere a law as passed making it against the law to buy tea from any other sources.

Some people in the American Colonies took exception to being taxed and having no say in how those taxes were levied. Thus the saying, "no taxation, without representation." After trying to get some egress from the local British leadership without success, some of the colonists decided to take action. Under cover of darkness, they slipped aboard some British cargo ships and began dumping tea into the Boston Harbor.

This act of disobedience to the Crown was in no small part, the start of what would become the Revolutionary War.

And that was led to the formation of a Country founded on the principles of freedom. One of those rights was the freedom of speech and the freedom to peacefully assemble. So if someone feels they have a legitimate complaint, they have the right to voice that grievance and to organize to show their solidarity to Local, State, or Federal elected officials.

And throughout our history people have used those rights to protest some of the wrongs that they have seen and endured in our country. The practice of slavery, women's suffrage, equal rights for various groups and what some perceived as unjust wars.

And for the most part, those protests led to changes for the better within our country. But one common theme was present in all of those protests. For the most part, the desired action or change was well defined. Nobody had to guess that it was slavery that people were protesting. It was not hidden that it was the rights of women that was being protested in the Suffrage Movement. The Civil Rights marches of the '50s and '60s did not have a hidden agenda. The protests against the War in Viet Nam were open and aboveboard.

But, today it seems that there is a new protest almost every week. At times I think there is a new protest every day. And for the most part, we have no idea what these folks are protesting. Not too long ago, we had people marching throughout America protesting our police. But it was unclear exactly what they were protesting about. It is true it started because a black man was shot by police. But that happened in one city in Missouri, and yet these people went across the Country shouting "pigs in a blanket. Fry them like bacon." Their theme was "Black Lives Matter." And most of us agree that black lives matter, just as we acknowledge that white lives matter and brown lives matter and yes blue lives matter.

But they refused to hear that. If someone tried to make the point that "all lives matter," they were shouted down. Their right to be heard was more important than anyone else's right to be heard.

And then we had the protests against Statues. People in many parts of the country organized protests against some statue of Southern War heroes. And that has spread to protests against even the Founding Fathers who came up with the idea of writing down precious freedoms and including them into a document that has stood the test of time for almost 240 years. If it were not for those men, we would not have the right to protest today. Surely they deserve some measure of thanks and to have their memories preserved by allowing their statues to stand.

The past two seasons, we have seen players kneeling during the National Anthem. None of them seem to want to share what they are kneeling against, so we have to assume that they are protesting what the Flag of The United States stands for. That flag stands for all the freedoms that everyone has under the Constitution of the United States. So when they exercise their freedom to disrespect that flag, they are saying that their right to do so is more important than the rights of anyone else. And now those actions have spread beyond football and basketball, and now they are starting in Major League baseball as well. And perhaps most disturbing to me is that even a children's band has joined into the lunacy. Instead of standing proudly while they played the National Anthem, they decided to get down on their knees while they played. Some of these children were still in middle school, and I can guarantee you they had no idea what they were taking a knee for. It has been explained in the news that they were protesting police brutality. I wonder how many of them could cite even one case of police brutality. Has anyone bothered to tell them that the vast majority of policemen and women in this country are good, honorable people that risk life and limb daily to keep the rest of us safe? Has anyone told them that these people they are accusing of brutality, risk death every time they put on their uniforms?

Frankly, I am tired of all the protests. If you have some grievance that you want to air, at least before taking to the streets, you might let us in on what it is you are grieving.

April 3, 2018

And Now Back to the Lunacy.

As my article yesterday mentioned, it seems like there is another protest of something popping up almost daily. And just to prove that point the city of Arcata, California has voted to remove the statue of William McKinley, the 25th President of the United States because it might be offensive to Native Americans. Now let's be honest, any statue of a white person is probably offensive to Native Americans. I imagine that a statue of Christopher Columbus would be particularly offensive since if he had not been so dogmatic about finding a new route to India, America might not have been discovered by white settlers for a few more years.

But to single out a statue of William McKinley. I bet if you asked a hundred people what McKinley was famous for, almost all of them would not have a clue. In fact, the vast majority might not even know that he was the President of our country. The only thing I remembered about him was that he was assassinated in Buffalo, New York.

So, of course, I decided to try and find out a little more about McKinley to find out why he would be so hated by American Indians. But try as I might, I could not find where McKinley had killed any of the Native people. I did learn that he enlisted as a private in the Union army during the Civil War and came out a major. Perhaps his union troops might have come into contact with some Indians during that war, but nothing that I found would suggest that.

I also found something that made me recall that he was President during the Spanish American war, which might have made his statue offensive to Spanish descendants but not so much to American Indians.

If you do want to find someone that was President whose statue would be offensive to American Indians, perhaps you should look to Andrew Jackson, who was President during the "Trail of Tears" or U.S. Grant who sold out the Western Tribes so that settlers could steal their land for the gold found there. But William McKinley, please?

Doesn't California have more important things to worry about than a statue of an obscure President? Maybe they should be spending more time removing Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters, both of which are far more offensive than any statue could be.

April 3, 2018

The Second Amendment is Under Assault.

Several cities throughout our great land have decided to rewrite the constitution. Spurred on by a group of young people who believe they are so much wiser than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, and others, cities and states are beginning to nullify the second amendment to our Constitution. And keep in mind that these brilliant young minds are some of the same people who believe that detergent pods are to be used for food instead of washing their clothes and that condoms are to be snorted instead of being used to prevent the conception of others who will have minds just as sharp as their own.

Six states now have "red flag" laws that empower the police to confiscate weapons from people that they deem to be a danger to themselves or others. The problem with these laws is that the people targeted for confiscation have no prior day in court. They do not have the right to be declared dangerous, only that someone has said that they are. It then becomes their burden to prove that they are not dangerous, and only when this is accomplished will the weapons be returned to them. This is a slippery slope that will lead directly to the disarming of the American public. Once the government finds out how easy it is to violate the rights of the people, there will be no stopping them.

And now Deerfield, Illinois has passed a law banning assault weapons from being kept within their city limits. Anyone failing to remove such weapons from the city will be subject to fines of 1000 dollars per day. It matters not to them that they have no idea what an assault weapon is. This is only the first step in banning all weapons from within their city limits. Of course, this will be fought all the way to the Supreme Court, but that takes time. While the court case moves at a snail's pace through the lower courts and finally ends up at the Supreme Court, thousands of people may have their right to bear arms infringed.

The ordinance defines the term assault weapon to include semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic pistols, semiautomatic shotguns, or shotguns with a revolving cylinder. It also includes conversion kits and goes on to name specific rifles such as the Uzi, AK-47, and AR-15, among others.

In other words, almost every weapon that anyone might own is banned except perhaps single shot rifles and muzzle-loaders. And you can bet they are the next target of these foolish lawmakers.

And you can bet that as soon as this become common knowledge, that crime rates will skyrocket as criminals discover that almost everyone is disarmed and at their mercy.

Wake up America before you allow the fools that you have elected to turn our country into a dictatorship instead of a Republic.

April 5, 2018

Just some random thoughts.

I saw an article this morning in the Trump Times where the question was asked: "Are all students against the Second Amendment." The author did an excellent job of showing that there are protests both for and against the ownership of firearms taking place by young people.

The problem seems to be that the mainstream media is flooding the airwaves with anti-gun rhetoric and ignoring anything resembling pro-gun beliefs. But then I got to thinking about it and in my mind, there are probably more young people that lean to the left than there are those that lean to the right. And that is understandable since the people that have the most influence on their minds, lean left as well.

Just look at our college campuses and see what is going on there. Why liberal speakers are welcomed with open arms, but if someone like Ben Shapiro dares to try to give a discourse he is either shut down or shuttled to a site many miles from the main campus to give his talk.

And even in high school, our children are being bombarded with liberal-leaning propaganda. And even before that, our grade school children are being taught from a curriculum that would make our founding fathers turn over in their graves.

But I think the real problem occurs even before that. I remember many years ago talking with a Catholic Priest, and he told me that molding children needs to be done at a very young age. He said, "Give me your children until they are five years old, and they will never leave my teachings."

When I was young, we did not shuffle our children off to pre-school, where their minds could be twisted by other people. We were taught at home by loving parents, many of which taught their children to read from the Bible. Before I ever set foot in a classroom, I knew that the theory of evolution was just that a theory set forth by someone that did not know the truth, that mankind was created by a loving God in his own image. We did not crawl out of some pond, to develop over millions of years from a single cell being to eventually become human. In God's image meant that from the day that we were created, we were intelligent beings, not some type of pond scum. So when my teachers started to teach that evolution was a fact, I knew differently and was able to stand up for my beliefs.

Today, I believe that most students get their first taste of education from someone other than their parents. They are molded by the thoughts and ideas of outsiders who themselves have been molded by outsiders.

And at least in my neighborhood, we were taught to have respect for firearms. By the time I was 12 years old, I had extensive training in the handling of guns and ammunition. But, before I ever held a gun in my hands, my father taught me two critical things. Number one, never point a loaded gun at anyone and number two always assume your gun is loaded. And I was not alone, almost every house had a weapon or two. And amazingly not one person was ever shot by those weapons.

Of course, I lived in a rural area where one of the primary forms of recreation was hunting of deer and smaller animals. So I not only was taught gun safety, but I also learned what happens when a bullet strikes flesh. I know that it has been touted that there is no correlation between violent video games and real-life violence, but I find that hard to believe. If you spend hours and hours shooting and blowing up people on a video screen, I cannot think that you do not become desensitized to violence in the real world. If it is true that playing violent games does not somehow lead to violence, then it must also be true that watching pornography does not lead to wanting to have sex. Or watching cooking shows does not lead to being hungry.

I do not have the answer as to how to reverse the trend and go back to a more civilized time than the one we live in today. Perhaps if we stick with our President and he manages to turn our economy around, maybe fewer families will have to have two wage earners, or at least they will be able to work fewer hours so that young minds will have a parent to teach them right from wrong.

And sadly there is probably never going to be a time again when we do not live in an electronic world where our every waking minute we must be watching a computer or video screen. I saw the other day where a City government is trying to pass a law that makes it illegal for employers to force their workers to monitor their phones in their off-hours. The theory is that then these people could spend more quality time with their families. If only it were that simple. Even if they are not receiving work-related calls, I can guarantee you that they will be watching their Facebook page or their Twitter feed instead of talking or reading with their family.

The world has changed and not for the better. And no matter how much we wish it would go back to the way it was before the invention of the Internet, you can't put those worms back in the can.

April 12, 2018

Will Professional Sports Survive?

I saw something interesting in one of my news feeds yesterday. It was an article on how the Baltimore Orioles are trying to build a fan base by giving away tickets. Not reduced-price tickets, mind you, free tickets. Of course, there is a catch. An adult must buy a ticket for themselves at the regular price, and then they get two free tickets which can only be used to bring children under the age of nine to the game.

That is absolutely brilliant, in my opinion. I believe that professional sports are on the decline despite the considerable money that the players and owners are reaping, right now. And the only way for them to survive the coming disaster is if they can build up a future fan base.

Here is an example of what I am talking about. Many years ago, I predicted that professional boxing would fade away. That was when they decided that fans needed to pay more to see their sport. No longer would the best bouts be on regular television but instead if you wanted to watch a championship match, you would have to pay extra, over, and above your ridiculous cable fee. It was called pay per view. I guess the idea was that if you as a homeowner could not afford the extra cost, you might get a bunch of neighbors together and split the cost. The problem with that was that it cut out the kids. Nobody wanted to pay to watch an event and have a half dozen or more children running around hooting and hollering. And so the kids were left with a sitter while the adults watched the match.

And that was when I quit watching professional boxing, a sport that I had always loved. I grew up watching "Friday Night at the Fights" with my father. It was a special treat to sit with a bowl of popcorn and watch Rocky Marciano take on all comers. And I got to see some of the best boxers that ever put on the gloves, including Cassius Clay and Sugar Ray Leonard. And my children watched it with me. But their children do not watch boxing. And even fewer of the next generation will. Sports are an acquired taste, perhaps like eating asparagus. If you don't acquire the taste early in life, it is not going to happen.

Now, I am sure that some of you are discounting my story. If that is the case, I ask you, who is the heavyweight champion of the world? Or the middleweight champion of the world or the welterweight champion of the world? I can honestly say I do not have a clue. And I find that a little amazing because I am on the Internet daily. I scan through the news feeds. I am on Facebook daily, reading the posts, and yet even by accident, I have seen nothing that would tell me who the champions of boxing are. Oh, I see some things about fake boxing, I think they call it mixed martial arts, but nothing about real boxing.

And I believe that unless something is done, like what the Orioles are trying to do, the same thing will happen to all professional sports.

Thinking back, I wonder if I would have ever become an avid Yankee fan if I had been born in a much later era than the 1940s. We had little else to do for entertainment than to watch and play sports. Today kids have so many other distractions that it is surprising that they bother to sit in front of a television and root on their favorite team. I believe that it is only because of the influence of the parents that they do so.

And when it becomes financially prohibitive for people to go to the games; that influence will die out.

I applaud the Orioles for their wisdom and foresight. I hope that they are successful and that other owners see that the future of their sport depends on building a fan base for the next generation. But I have little faith that will happen. The Bible says that "the love of money, is the root of all evil." The love of money is also killing professional sports.

April 14, 2018

Was There a Nefarious Motive Behind the Syrian Bombing?

In 2013 then-President Obama announced that a red line for the United States was if Assad started using chemical weapons on his own people. Assad soon after did just that and Obama totally ignored it showing that his word and his resolved were both worthless.

Shortly after Donald Trump was sworn in as President, Assad again decided to test the resolve of an American President. He again gassed his own civilian population killing innocent men, women, and children. But this time was different. He soon discovered that this new President was not lily-livered like his predecessor. Within a short period, missiles began raining down on the airbase that Assad had used to deliver his weapons of mass destruction. And all was quiet for a time after that.

But as time went on, Assad could see that President Trump was being assailed from all sides from within his own country. He was falsely accused of election manipulation, and prostitutes were coming out of their cracks beneath the sewers to accuse him of being less than morally sound. Surely now he would not have the time or the will to be worried about what Assad was doing in the Middle East. And with the backing of Russia and Iran, he again decided to gas his own people.

Again he miscalculated the resolve of our President. This morning missiles from not only the United States but from France and Great Britain as well rained down on his chemical factories and facilities rendering them a pile of rubble. Putin had promised that if we attacked, he would shoot our missiles out of the air, but strangely enough, that did not happen. In fact, Putin's response has been to call an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council, something utterly meaningless since Britain, France, and The United States all have veto power over anything that might be close to the condemnation of those countries.

One would think that Trump's protagonists in this country would now stand behind him, seeing that he is a man of his word. Plainly all those folks that have been shouting that he is in Putin's back pocket would renounce their words and admit that Trump not only is not in Putin's pocket but that he has done far more to thwart Putin than any President that has come before him. But not so.

Now we hear that the only reason that Trump took this action was to draw attention away from the Russia investigation and the Stormy Daniels accusations. So one has to ask since we did not undertake this mission alone, what was the motives of Great Britain and France in launching their missiles? Is it possible that they were hoodwinked by the author of "The Art of the Deal"? Is it feasible to assume that these great countries do not have agencies of their own to gather intelligence and that they had to rely on the doctored evidence of the United States? That is ludicrous to even contemplate.

They stood beside us because they believed that it was the right thing to do. Anyone except the most stalwart Trump haters has to see that genocide against an entire population cannot be condoned. Some response to these heinous attacks had to be carried out. To do otherwise would be to invite even more use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians in Syria.

Come on, folks, wake up and smell the coffee. Donald Trump is a man of his word, and we should stand behind him with our support. And once and for all time please put to rest your false accusations of Russian collusion.

April 19, 2018

Should the families of our Presidents be fair game?

The death, the day before yesterday of a former First Lady, Barbara Bush, reminded me that there once was a time when we might have been more civilized as a people. Oh, not more civilized in our politics. Many people may not remember that at the beginning of our Republic, some politicians settled their differences with pistols at 30 feet.

And politics were perhaps at their absolute lowest when we elected Andrew Jackson to the presidency. He was probably one of the most vindictive men that ever served in the Oval Office. When one of his former scouts, Davy Crocket won a congressional seat from the State of Tennessee, Jackson started a smear campaign against him solely because Crockett objected to Jackson's outright murder of women and children in the Creek War.

No, I am talking about the way we have historically treated the families of our Presidents. I can honestly say that I do not remember a time when the President's family was open game as it is today. In my lifetime, Eleanor Roosevelt, Bess Truman, Mamie Eisenhower, Jaqueline Kennedy, Lady Bird Johnson, Pat Nixon, Betty Ford, Rosalyn Carter, Nancy Reagan, and Barbara Bush were all treated like royalty. Heaven help anyone that dared speak ill of any of them, at least while they were still in the White House. And God help anyone that spoke ill of their children.

It wasn't until Hillary Clinton that this unspoken rule was breached, and then not until she became involved openly in her husband's sexual escapades and then decided to run for political office on her own. But even then no one spoke out against Clinton's only daughter.

Another Bush was then elected, and the rule was again observed. Many people disliked "W," but they did not carry that to his family.

And as despicable as Barak Obama was, his wife only became under fire for her announcement when her husband was elected that "For the first time, I am proud to be an American." That brought some criticism since we have the misguided opinion that our citizens should always be proud to be an American. We should not have to wait for our spouse to be elected to the highest office in the land to come to that conclusion. But even then, for the most part, the Obama family was off-limits.

But not so today. As far as I can tell, Melania Trump has never harmed another person, and she is as far from a political person as you could find, and yet she has continuously been assailed from all sides. And even her young son, Baron has been derided by comedians and politicians alike.

I can tell you that if our early Presidents had their families set upon as Trump has had his, pistols at 30 feet would have been the norm.

April 19, 2018

Are you sexist or racist?

I was listening to Glenn Beck the other day as I drove to the store. I did not catch too much of the conversation but enough to know that they were talking about the growing use of words like sexism and racism. Beck mentioned that Hillary Clinton has over and over again blamed misogyny as one of the reasons that she lost the election to Donald Trump.

Beck made the statement that he was positive that some people probably voted against her just because she was a woman but that he didn't know anyone that had. I am sure that he is being bashed severely by the left for making such a terrible falsehood. So being one of those that voted against Clinton, and that was what it was. I did not vote for Donald Trump so much as I voted against a woman that I viewed to be utterly dishonest in every single thing she has done in life. But did I vote against her because she was a woman? Absolutely not. I remember back to the Viet Nam era when I had espoused the view that I wished we would elect a woman, preferably a mother to the highest office in the land. It was my view then that a mother would be less likely to send her children off to war than would a man.

I lost all respect for Hillary Clinton when she verbally attacked other women who accused her husband of rape. It was apparent to me at that time that she knew the truth; that Wee Willy Clinton was a sexual predator but that she would stand by him none the less. I became disenchanted entirely with her when as Secretary of State, she failed to send help to our diplomats when it was requested by Chris Stevens. And I believe she has blood on her hands for those that died in Benghazi, not to mention many others that probably were ordered killed so that they could not testify against her or her disgusting husband.

So I voted against her not because she was a woman but because she is less than human and I bet that is the case with the vast majority of both men and women that voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils.

So that brings me to the charge of racism that I get any time that I disagree with someone of another race. It was not too long ago that an Ohio State University workshop told their students that only white people can be racist. So I had to look up the definition of racism since I believed that racism meant that a person prefers to be with those of their own race. So if you take my definition of racism, most if not all, people would be classified as racists.

Here is how the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines racism: **:** a belief that race is the primary  determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

So looking at that definition, my belief that those of the colored races make better basketball players would make me a racist in reverse.

But how that proves that only white people can be racists is beyond my comprehension. I am positive that there are people of every color and nationality that believe strongly that people of their race are inherently superior to others. Or worse yet that people of a race other than their own are intrinsically inferior to themselves.

Take, for example, the words of Louis Farrakhan. He has repeatedly called for the annihilation of the Jewish people and has called white people devils that deserve to die. He certainly is not white, and his words proved that he finds both Jews and white people to be inferior to his own race.

I won't try to convince you that there is no racism or sexism today among white people. But I will say that just because you disagree with someone of another sex or race does not make you a sexist or racist. A lot of people found Barak Obama objectionable due to his anti-American rhetoric, but that was not because he was black.

I remember someone calling me a racist for my statements against Obama and then saying that I did not understand what it meant to be black in America. My response was he was right, I did not know what it was like to be black in America since I was not President, Secretary to the United Nations, or Attorney General. At that time, all three of those high ranking positions were filled by black Americans.

I could have added that I also did not know what it was like to be black in America since I did not have the advantage of Affirmative action when I was applying to a school or an organization.

I am sure that many people that live in the inner cities feel discrimination because of the color of their skin. I am equally sure that there are many more that have overcome those feelings and gone on to be successful people. One need look no further than those holding high office over the past 20 years.

What made them able to rise up and succeed? I submit that although racism and sexism are alive and well today that these things have less of an impact on lives than at any other time in history. But for many, it is easier to call someone a racist than to carry on an honest debate with them.

April 22, 2018

Which argument makes more sense?

A few days ago, a conservative black woman, (let that one sink in) was speaking in front of a group at UCLA at the request of a group whose agenda is exposing leftist lies and progressive propaganda. Candace Owens was attempting to speak when a group of "Black Lives Matter people" tried to shout her down. This did not end well for that group of rabble-rousers.

Ms. Owens stated that there is a vast difference between the victim mentality and the victor mentality.

"I don't understand why you want to feel oppressed, 400 years of slavery, and Jim Crow, which you did not live through. You are over-privileged Americans."

This got mixed reviews from the celebrities, but surprisingly Kanye West came out in her corner saying, "I like the way she thinks."

Of course now West is taking the heat but so far has not backed down.

But, stop and think for a minute about what she said. She admits that we had slavery in this country and that Jim Crow laws did exist, but neither of those things exists today. Why are these folks screaming about something that was rectified many years ago? Since that time, we have had black people in every position of every profession, including the Presidency of the United States. No one has to continue to be oppressed if they want to put in the effort to get out of the Ghettoes.

On the other hand, Colin Kaepernick took a completely opposite view in a speech. He said, "Racialized oppression and dehumanization is woven into the very fabric of our nation – the effects of which can be seen in the lawful lynching of black and brown people by the police, and the mass incarceration of black and brown lives in the prison industrial complex."

Wow, what a strong statement. So I have to ask, have any of you saw any black or brown people being lynched by the police in the last 50 or so years? I think that would require a policeman getting a rope, dragging some poor person under a tree or scaffold, throwing the rope over a limb, and hauling that poor person up until his feet were off the ground. Now, personally, even with all the news coverage we have of almost anything that happens in our country, I have not seen that happening. Yes, I have seen some police shootings of black, brown, and white Americans. But in the vast majority of those shootings, they are justified. These people were not lynched.

I have also seen instances where police officers were ambushed when responding to disputes and even killed as they ate lunch in a restaurant. If anyone is oppressed in this country, it is those brave men and women that put on a blue uniform and risk their lives to protect all citizens, including those of color.

And of course, he didn't bother to let us know which ones of those people locked up in our prison systems that did not commit the crimes they were incarcerated for.

Kaepernick went on to say, "How can you stand for the national anthem of a nation that preaches and propagates, "freedom and justice for all," that is so unjust to so many of the people living there?"

I would ask him how you can live in such a country? Surely with all of the money that you made being a second-rate quarterback for a professional football team you could live in some other country. Perhaps you would be better off in North Korea, where Otto Warmbier found such tolerance. Or you might be happier living in Iran where if you do not submit to Sharia Law they throw large stones at you. I am sure many African countries would welcome you and your money with open arms. In short, you have multiple choices of where you could live and never have to hear our National Anthem again.

But alas that is just wishful thinking on my part. Kaepernick has the right to live and protest in this country. And he has the right to speak his mind, trying to convince the populace that the police and just waiting for the opportunity to lynch some poor black man that dares rise above the rubble of the Ghetto. But don't let the truth get in the way of that rhetoric. Don't bother to include that many black, brown, yellow, red, and white American's are living far better today than at any time in history. Don't bother to let the truth that anyone of any color can rise to any position, in any government or organization, water down your hate-filled speech.

So which of these arguments makes more sense to you. A young black woman who believes in the American dream, or the black athlete who obviously was given every opportunity in life but chooses to continue to portray himself as a victim?

April 23, 2018

Socialism or Capitalism, which do you prefer?

In a recent poll, when asked the question, what type of government would you prefer, 44% of millennials said they would prefer socialism and 42% said they would prefer capitalism. Surprisingly 7% said they would prefer to live under a Fascist Government, and 7 % said a communist government.

I suppose this should not really shock anyone since this is the generation that thinks everything should be given to them. What would have surprised me is if this group had any idea of what either socialism, fascism, communism, or capitalism really means.

So just in case any millennials are reading this here is the definition of socialism:

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

It is not much different than Communism with the exception that Marx believed that his style of government could only be achieved by class warfare.

A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned, and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

So, in either case, you cannot own anything. Everything is owned by the collective or the community and then divided up depending on the needs of the people. Gee doesn't that sound just peachy dandy?

Why should you work at all? The community is going to take care of all your needs, whether you do anything to earn them or not. You don't have to get up and go to a job, you can stay home and play video games all day and all night. No wonder these young folks think these are wonderful forms of government. But they forget one thing. If you don't go to work and your neighbor doesn't go to work, and his neighbor doesn't go to work, who is going to produce the things that you need?

And since you cannot own property, how can you select the type of home that you want to live in or the type of car that you want to drive. These things are owned by the community, not you. So the community will tell you where to live, what to wear, and what to drive if anything. Perhaps the community will decide that you don't need a car; that you can get along just fine with public transportation.

And the community also owns all the food, so you don't get to choose what you want to have for dinner tonight. The community will give you what food they think that you need or better yet they might have a big meal prepared in the town hall and dish it up for you as you go through the feeding line just like the homeless folks get to do. But when the vast majority of people find out that they are no better off working than not, everyone will stop working, and the community will have no food to dish out for you.

It is a little different in Communist countries. There they give you a job, and if you don't produce at that job, then you don't eat. The government decides what kind of work you will do and then makes sure that you do it.

Now for capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Unless you are completely lazy, you should prefer this type of government. Here the harder you work and the smarter you work, the more goods and services you own. You can choose to live in any house that you can afford, drive any car that you can afford and eat the types of food that you like.

This works well for the people that study hard in school, learn a profession or trade and work diligently at that profession or trade. That is the system of government that the United States was founded on. But little by little, the government began to control more and more of our lives. Once they enacted the Income Tax, we started down a slippery slope towards socialism that we are still heading towards today.

But not fast enough for many people. They look at the top 1% and say, those people have far more than they deserve and I have far less than I deserve. So I want a government that will take all of that wealth away from those people and give it to me. But while you are thinking that way, someone else is looking at your new car and saying, I should have that car. I want my government to take it away from you and give it to me.

Or perhaps someone is looking at your two-bedroom house while they are living in a one-bedroom apartment. Why should you have two bedrooms while they only have one? Because I worked for it, you might say. And those people in the top 1% worked for what they have as well. If what you have should not be taken away from you, then what they have should not be taken away from them.

Now when most people think of socialism, they only consider health care. The cry is that everyone deserves good health care. Those greedy insurance companies should not be making money off of sick people. I have heard many people say that there should be no profit in health insurance. But wait, think back to what we talked about earlier. If there is no profit in doing something, then why would you do it? I have heard the same argument about drug companies. It is the opinion of some that those people that manufacture pharmaceuticals should also be non-profit. But if that is the case, why should they spend their own money to develop new medicines?

That is why we need government-run healthcare, you say. So what does that look like? Do health insurance companies cease to exist, and Doctors and Hospitals and Drug Companies are now paid by the government? Does the government decide how much a Doctor gets for treating a patient? Does a hospital get paid depending on how many patients are admitted regardless of what they are being treated for? If that is the case, then hangnails should take priority over cancer cases. You can treat a lot more hangnails than you can people with cancer. And how about those terrible Pharmaceutical companies? How do you decide what drugs get what money? Maybe all drugs should be treated equally? But then why should they make drugs that cost more money? Why not just manufacture Aspirin?

Socialism does not work. Communism worked for a while as long as the government had complete control over the populace. If you had to do what you were told or be killed, then you probably did what you were told. But look at the quality of life, in those countries where communism still exists by the hard hand of the government. North Korea and Cuba are good examples. While the people starve, their leaders live high off the hog. Is that really the type of government that you want?

Of course, I shouldn't really blame these young people. The vast majority have no idea what it means to have a real job or to live on their own. But the scary thought is that they do have the right to vote and are using it to elect more socialist candidates in every election cycle. Heaven help us.

April 26, 2018

Are Reparations for Slavery Owed?

Malik Shabazz, former President of the Black Panthers, over the weekend demanded that we pay reparations for slavery or designate Florida for African Americans only. It was, of course, nice to see that he was not hard and fast on getting Florida since he said that if that were not possible, Georgia, Alabama, or South Carolina would be acceptable.

I am relatively sure that he did not seriously think that we would be giving one of our Southeast States to him. Perhaps if he had been more reasonable and asked for California, we might have immediately acquiesced to his demands.

But one might ask isn't he going to be kind of lonely, having the entire State of Florida for the few hundred thousand folks that actually came here from Africa? Isn't that the definition of an African American, someone who came here directly from Africa and is now a citizen of the United States? One Black American recently said that she hated to be called an African American. She thought that she was just an American and then added, "I haven't ever been to Africa."

So now let's get back to this idea of giving reparations for slavery. Who are we supposed to provide those reparations to? It seems to me that since slavery ended in the United States in 1865 that there aren't many people left that would have ever been slaves. Of course, there are still countries in Africa, who although slavery is illegal, still follow the practice. Perhaps he should be talking to them about reparations.

But if he could find someone that was actually a slave before 1865 how much should we pay them in reparations? Undoubtedly the one or two, if any persons that old, wouldn't want to live in Florida all by themselves. I know it is touted as the retirement capital of the world, but surely those folks would get mighty lonely.

One has to ask, how long is this lunacy going to continue? How long are these folks going to continue to claim that they are oppressed? Oh, I realize that it was a long, difficult struggle for them to attain equal rights, but they now have them. In fact, they have had more than equal rights for many years now. If they want something that they are unwilling to work to get, all they have to do is shout discrimination at the top of their lungs, and someone will knuckle under and give it to them. No white person could ever get away with that.

So it has been over 150 years since slavery was ended and over half a century since the Civil Rights Act was signed into law. How many more hundred years are we going to have to put up with fools like Shabazz? Will there ever come a time when people will realize that if they want something and are willing to work hard enough for it, they can achieve it regardless of their skin color?

April 26, 2018

Does Bernie Sanders really want to divide our country into 12 districts?

I saw the other day that Bernie Sanders was proposing a 15 dollar minimum wage for United States workers. That caused me to wonder if he also wanted to see a $10 hamburger at McDonald's. But I imagine he doesn't care about that since he is a multi-millionaire that could easily afford the upcharge.

But then yesterday I was listening to Glenn Beck on the radio and heard him mention that was only part of the old communist's plans. It seems that he is also proposing a plan to guarantee a job to every American. That didn't surprise me too much as that is how communism works. Every person has to work, and the government decides what job they are qualified to do. What did surprise me was Sander's idea of dividing the country up into 12 districts, each one of which would concentrate on a different aspect of job creation. While there were no specifics given by Sanders (not a surprise there, since the whole idea is ludicrous) the very idea of dividing the country is a little contradictory to the "one nation under God" idea.

One has to wonder where some of these politicians get their ideas from, but in this case, it is not too hard to figure that one out. Have you ever watched any of the three "Hunger Games" movies?

So how is Sanders planning on paying for this grandiose scheme? With a national sales tax, of course. Now all you folks that are complaining about the rich not paying their fair share should be happy with that idea, right? Of course, you realize that the rich are pretty much the only people that pay income tax, but everyone would be paying the sales tax. In fact, the people that would be hit the hardest by a sales tax are the poor and middle class who have no choice but to buy goods and services that this tax would be collected from.

I am amazed that the American people keep falling for the Democrat give away programs. When Obama was running for his second term, the rallying cry was getting your free Obama Phone. Really how many people were stupid enough to vote for someone for President based on getting a free wireless phone? Quite a few, it would seem.

And they are still falling for the Obamacare idea. Let's make sure that everyone has access to health care. And didn't that work out peachy dandy? Everyone could get health care, but it did little good since the deductibles were so high that nobody could afford to use it. Well, some people could afford to use it, those on Medicaid were just fine. It was the rest of us that suffered for those folks to get away scot-free.

The old saying, "there is no such thing as a free lunch" should be remembered. If you actually believe that the government will provide goods and services to you cheaper than private entrepreneurship, then you have another think coming. Ronald Reagan once said that the most terrifying words in the English language were "I'm from the government, and I am here to help you." You need to remember those words every time you hear a Democrat promise you something for free. It will be the most expensive free thing you ever received.

May 14, 2018

Who really are the liars?

There is an old adage, "never discuss religion or politics." I ran afoul of this recently when we visited one of my wife's relatives. I knew better than to engage in political discussions, and I tried my best not to be drawn into what I knew would be a futile discussion. But alas, I have never been accused of being able to hold my fire when it comes to either politics or religion. So in due time, I found myself defending our President when once again, it was thrown out that he was the worst President that ever lived and the biggest liar to boot.

I tried to counter with what I believed was the path of least resistance, saying that you cannot hold lying against any politician because they are all liars. Nobody ever was elected to any office in this country by telling the truth. I would bet that all of you can look back on things that politicians have promised and failed to deliver. George H.W. Bush's famous line, "Read my lips, no new taxes" is just one such example.

But looking back on the 2016 Presidential campaign, one candidate stood out for making more promises than most. But amazingly enough, he has delivered on almost all of those promises in his first year and a half as our President. That candidate was Donald Trump.

He promised to pull us out of the terribly flawed Iran nuclear deal, and this past week he delivered on that promise. He vowed to renegotiate the Paris Climate Accord or to pull us out of it, and he has delivered on that promise. He promised to bring jobs (including manufacturing jobs) back to America, and tens of thousands of those jobs have returned. He promised to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court, and his first nominee Neil Gorsuch delivered on that promise.

He promised to work to make better trade deals with China, and he has been able to do just that. There are many other promises that he made, building a wall, renegotiating NAFTA and TPP that he is working on and I have no doubt that he will manage to fulfill even against the obstructionists in the Democratic and Republican parties.

But perhaps the one promise that he made as have so many before him that he fulfilled when none of his predecessors could, was accomplished this morning. Every president since Ronald Reagan has at one time or another promised to move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and not one of them has delivered on that promise. But Donald Trump proved once again that he is a man of his word. He promised to move our embassy to Jerusalem, and this morning our embassy was open for business in Jerusalem.

So for all of you that say that Donald Trump is a liar, please look back at all the things he has said that he would do and notice that for the most part, he has followed through on those promises. And then think about other presidents, such as Obama who drew a red line in the sand and then crawled away when Syria crossed it.

It will be interesting when the leader of North Korea meets with our President, something that has never been done before if he will understand that when Donald Trump says that he is going to do something he speaks the truth.

By and large, I stand by my statement that all politicians are liars, but two things stand out to me. One is that Donald Trump is not a politician and two; he is a man of his word.

May 19, 2018

Three things I will never buy again.

Number One: PowerCooker from Wal-Mart. While this machine works pretty much as advertised, it becomes worthless within a short period due to the inner pot being Teflon coated. After just a few uses, the Teflon begins to chip off and ends up in any food that you are cooking. Since Teflon has been associated with health concerns, I doubt that you would want to eat anything cooked in that pot.  
I contacted the company and asked if I could purchase a non-coated stainless steel pot for the unit and was told no. The coated pot was the only thing made for that cooker. If this could be rectified, I would recommend the product, but as it is, I would give it zero stars.  
Number Two: Eggletts. When you watch the commercial, you are bound to be super impressed. Instead of boiling eggs and hoping that you will be able to peel them without losing half the egg, you just crack the egg into the neoprene mold, screw on the top, and drop them in a pan of boiling water. And within a few minutes, you have a perfectly hardboiled egg without the fuss of peeling.  
What they don't show is that the egglettes do not stay upright while cooking. They tip over on their sides, and water enters the egglette through a small hole in the top ruining the egg. So instead of losing part of the egg when you are peeling it, you lose the entire egg. Not even worth half a star.  
Number Three: Yoshi copper grill and bake sheets. I don't know how they would work to bake on, but for grilling they are terrible. I first tried cooking barbeque chicken on them and ruined one side as no matter how hard you scrub, you will never get them clean. Then I tried cooking hamburgers on them with pretty much the same result. They were utterly black before the burgers were even cooked on one side. And again you cannot scrub them clean. So unless you want to spend 8 to 10 dollars for a one time use, forget this product.

May 19, 2018

It is a throwaway world.

If my father could see what is happening today, he would roll over in his grave. From the youngest of ages, he instilled in his children that it is cheaper to repair than to replace. And he lived by that motto.

If he hit a rock while plowing and broke a blade, he did not buy a new plow. If possible, he would fire up his welder and fix the broken parts. If that were not possible, he would go to the local feed and tack store and order a new blade which he installed himself.

When I had a fender bender with my old car, he went with me to the local salvage yard, found a new fender, showed me how to remove it, and then helped me put it back on. Then we sanded it down and painted it ourselves.

We finally got a television when I was 9 or 10 years old. When I malfunctioned, as electronics are bound to do, he opened the back, found the tube that was no longer working, bought the part, and replaced it. No thought was given to purchasing a new set.

And of course, he did not believe in hiring people to do things you could do yourself. When the oil in the car, tractor, or truck needed changing, he bought the oil and filters, got out a catch pan, and did the work himself. The same went for replacing spark plugs, points, brake pads, or almost any other maintenance.

And for most of my life, I followed his example. I never gave thought to take a car to the garage and paying four or five hundred dollars for a brake job. For less than 40 dollars at AutoZone, I could get the parts and do the job myself. And rarely did I need to have the rotors turned.

But today, you not only need to replace the pads but the rotors as well since they no longer make the rotors out of steel. To save weight and a minuscule amount of gasoline over the vehicles life, they have begun making the rotors out of cheap, lightweight material that wears out at the same rate as the brake pads.

And don't even think about changing your own spark plugs. I doubt that unless you went to auto mechanics school, you could even find them. Of course, modern cars do not have points, they have electronic ignitions that most of us know little if anything about.

May 21, 2018

Should the President agree to meet with Robert Mueller?

Let me start out by saying that everyone has something to hide. I don't care if you are Mother Teresa, The Pope, or President Trump, you have done something in your past that can be construed as evil. So agreeing to be questioned by someone that I believe to be a truly evil person, Robert Mueller is probably not a wise choice.  
It might be one thing if this witch hunt had been confined to what we the people believed it was created for, Russian interference in our elections. But that line of inquiry went by the wayside many moons ago. Not one iota of evidence has been produced linking the President of the United States with Russian interference. But that has not sidelined Mueller or his team of ghouls.  
Finding nothing concerning Russia to indict anyone on the Trump team with, Mueller proceeded to attack a good man Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI even though the then head of the FBI, James Comey had said that he found no evidence to support that allegation. But that did not deter Mueller. He knew that he needed someone to blame for something and so he convinces Michael Flynn to plead guilty because Mueller could continue the case indefinitely and Michael Flynn could not. We have some hope that charge may be thrown out as it moves through the court system.  
So on to two people that had some connections with the Trump Campaign, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. Even though if you look at the headlines, they seem to be linked to Russian meddling, that is not what they were charged with. They are facing 12 counts, including conspiracy to launder money, conspiracy against the United States, (whatever that means) being an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading FARA statements, and other charges.  
As this case moves through the courts and the defense counsel demands discovery of evidence, that probably is tainted by the fruit of a poison tree, these cases may also be dismissed. Of course, that depends on whether the defendants can afford to continue the battle.  
So finding no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election Mueller has moved on to maybe they colluded with someone in the middle east. And perhaps they colluded with voters in the United States which is more likely. But this goes to show that Mueller will never stop until he has found something damning within the Trump inner circle, with the big fish, The President himself.

So why then would the President agree to sit down with who has proved himself to be an enemy of his administration? I believe that Mueller will use this meeting to expand his witch hunt even further afield. Perhaps it will be Trump's finances that he attacks. Maybe it might be his tax returns that he zeroes in on. That possibility itself should be enough to strike fear into Trump's heart. Oh, not because he has knowingly done anything wrong with paying his due share to the IRS. But rather because no matter how he answers questions about his tax returns, he might be open to charges of lying to the FBI. Nobody knows what the tax code says. If you were to ask 100 Certified Public Accountants about some facet of the tax code, you might easily get 100 different answers. So no matter how the President might answer those questions, Mueller could find enumerable witnesses to testify that what he said was incorrect, leading to the charge of perjury.  
And even though a sitting President cannot be indicted, they can be impeached, which is what the majority of Democrats and more than a few Republicans want to see happen. Of course, even if Trump is exonerated by Mueller, which is highly unlikely, there is the distinct possibility that if the Democrats win back the House and Senate, this fall that he will face impeachment charges. I know the constitution says that he can only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, but these are not specified. Democrats, reporters, and others have been screaming for his impeachment from even before he took the oath of office.  
So back to the original question, should the President meet with Robert Mueller? On the one hand, I don't see an upside. There is little if any possibility that when this meeting is over, the President will come out smelling better than when he went in. So if it were just the President that has something to lose I would say no way. Stay as far from the bloodsuckers as you can.  
But on the other hand, it is imperative that Republicans maintain control of both houses this November. And if the President refuses to meet with Mueller, it is bound to be misconstrued as being because he has something to hide. And the Democrats are bound to jump on that in the upcoming campaign. Knowing how gullible the American Electorate is, that might be enough to cause the loss of the House and Senate. If that happens, even if the votes are not there for impeachment, everything the President is trying to accomplish will be blocked.  
So it looks to me that he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
May 22, 2018

Social Security, How long can it be sustained?

Back in the middle '60s, I was selling life insurance for Farmer's and Trader's Life Insurance company. One of the sales aids that we were given to use as a presentation was entitled "You'll earn a Fortune." Of course, back then nobody expected to truly earn a fortune as we would look at a fortune today. The brochure showed a large stack of money, and we told the prospective client that it represented a quarter of a million dollars which most anyone at that time would agree was a fortune. $120 per week for 40 years equals 250,000 dollars. The presentation went on to say that part of everything you earn should be yours to keep. The problem is saving it and keeping it saved. Our answer to that problem was whole life insurance or cash value life insurance whichever term you prefer.

Since you paid the bill when it came due, you looked at it as an obligation, not as a choice and so, in theory, it forces you to save some of what you made.

At about that same time, my father-in-law retired and began collecting Social Security. He told me that buying whole life insurance was a foolish thing since Social Security would take care of a person's retirement much better than the meager gains from a life insurance company. He further told me that by the time he had collected 2 years of benefits that he had already taken out more money from the system than what he had put in. And perhaps he had, but what he forgot to consider was that he only paid in half of the premiums. His employer paid in the other half.

And since Social Security had only been around for less than 30 years, he had not paid in as long as most of us have today.

But for him, Social Security was a bargain. He lived to be 75 years old, and so he received far more in benefits than what he or his employer paid in.

But when Social Security was enacted in 1935, it was never intended to be a person's entire retirement program. First, you have to understand that the average life expectancy in 1935 was 61 years and the earliest that you were intended to draw benefits was 65, so at that time most people were not expected to draw many if any benefits from the program.

In 2012 the life expectancy had climbed to 78 years, and it is projected that soon it will be over 90 years of age. Just think of what that does to a retirement program that was never designed to pay out that length of benefits.

Another misconception about Social Security is that you have your own little nest egg that has been saved and invested over the years. Nothing is further from the truth. Not only do you not have an individual account, but there is also no personal account that is drawing interest. The money was never invested in anything, so it has drawn no interest. Every time the government gets in a bind, they dip into the fund and use it for whatever willy-nilly purpose they deem prudent.

But that is only one reason that Social Security is failing and probably will completely disappear in the future. In 1945 there were 42 workers for each retiree. So there was a lot more money being put into the program than was being drawn out. By 2010 only 2.9 workers were paying in for each retiree, and soon that number will be 2 to 1. Since the percentage a worker and the employer pay in is only 13%, I imagine that you can see that very soon there will not be nearly enough money being put in to support the people drawing out.

It is touted that by 2034 that the Social Security fund will be out of money. I don't know where they get that idea since in actuality there is no Social Security fund. Bill Clinton depleted what fund there was many years ago so that he could claim to have balanced the budget.

I laugh every time that I hear someone get their panties in a bunch over the use of the word entitlement when referring to Social Security. "We paid into that program. It is our money. Don't you dare touch it!" they exclaim.

In reality, it is not your money. Your money was spent years ago. It is someone else's money that they will most likely never see one red cent of that is paying your check. Social Security is, in fact, a Ponzi scheme. As shown earlier, most people were never intended to get anything out of what they paid in. And like all Ponzi schemes, it is bound to cease to exist at some point. I only hope that I die before they realize that they cannot afford to send me my monthly check.

Now should we talk about Medicare?

May 23, 2018

Is there a blue wave coming?

We have heard it for months now. The Democrats are going to retake the House of Representatives this fall and may even retake the Senate. The latter seems doubtful since so many more Democrats than Republicans have to defend their seats in the Senate.

Now there is a precedent for a "blue wave" happening this fall. More often than not, the party in power loses seats in Congress during the first midterm election of a new presidency. I think the reason for that is that it is difficult for a newly elected President to get much accomplished in his first two years. Perhaps the reason for that is that there is a learning curve that newly elected people have to go through.

And added to that dynamic is that the American people are not, as a rule, a patient bunch. When do we want something? We want it now. That may be why fast food restaurants and drive-through lanes are so popular. Little Caesar's Pizza has capitalized on this phenomenon with its "hot and ready" campaign. You don't even have to pick up the phone and order your pizza. Just stop in at a location, go into the store, pay for your pie, and walk out with it.

If we cannot even wait a few minutes to get our food, why should we wait for three or four years for what a candidate promised us while they were running for office?

And just a short time ago, the polls had the Democrats with a double-digit lead when asked who the person would vote for this fall. There are a couple of things wrong with looking at those polls. First, we are way too far out from this fall's elections, and just as the American people have little patience, they also are fickle. They change their minds at the drop of a hat.

And secondly, polls have been proven to be far from accurate. This was shown in the 2016 Presidential Election. A few days before the voting booths opened for business, Hillary Clinton had a double-digit lead. She was so confident that she would be the next President that she did not even bother to visit several key states.

And we know how that worked out for her. Trump won by an electoral landslide, although Clinton did manage to get enough Illegal Immigrant and dead people votes to win the popular vote.

As of yesterday, the Democrat lead in one poll had slipped to 6 percentage points and in another was a tossup. But again It is far too early to be worrying about the polls. What we should be worried about is the type of candidates that the Republican Party is offering up for this fall's elections.

We saw in one special election in Alabama that you cannot count on the electorate voting as they have in the past. Whether you believe that Roy Moore was a pervert or think that he was wrongly accused it is apparent that he was the wrong choice if the Republicans wanted to hold onto that Senate seat.

In the West Virginia Primary for Senate, It appeared that the Republicans had learned a lesson from the Alabama fiasco. One candidate, Don Blankenship, had so much baggage that the Republicans gave him almost no votes in the primary. In fact, in a three-way race, he finished third. And that should have been the end of it. Blankenship should have accepted the will of the people and bowed out gracefully. But that was not what happened. He is now going to run for the seat as an Independent even though that means that he will probably take enough votes away from the Republican so that the Democrat holds onto that seat. If he could not even get a second-place finish in the primary, how does he expect to win in the General Election? I imagine that he doesn't believe he can win, but he is so vindictive that he wants to spoil the party for the other Republican.

This is the type of thing that Republicans must be wary of. Rather than accepting a "blue wave," we need to expand our margin in both houses so that everything that our President has accomplished does not get overturned.

And remember that many Democrats are calling for the impeachment of a duly elected President. If they gain a majority in the House or even are close to a majority, there is little doubt that they will try to impeach President Trump. Remember that for impeachment to proceed all that is needed is a simple majority of the House of Representatives.

Removing the President would be less likely as it takes a two-thirds majority in the Senate, but the safest road would be to make sure that Fancy Nancy does not become Speaker of the House.

And also remember that several Supreme Court Justices could well retire shortly if, in fact, they don't die in office. If we lose control of the Senate, President Trump will have no chance of getting a conservative Justice appointed to the highest court in the land. If we lose the conservative majority in the Court, the second amendment is in dire jeopardy, and there is no chance that our unborn babies will have additional protections.

There is perhaps as much at stake this fall as there was in the fall of 2016, as everything that has been accomplished since that time could be taken away. President Trump has accomplished a lot, but there is still much work to do. Do not sit on your laurels. If there is a primary in your State, get out and vote for the very best Republican candidate. And when November rolls around make sure that you vote for the candidate that supports Trump's agenda.

If we all do our part, the "blue wave" will turn out to be a "red storm."

May 24, 2018

Is the President always right?

I know that you may find this unbelievable, but I disagree with the President on something he has said. As much as it pains me to say this, every person is wrong occasionally. In fact, some people have expressed the idea that I am wrong about some things that I have said or written about. There might even be a few million people that believe that I am wrong about what I am about to expound on.

In an interview with Brian Kilmeade, the President was asked what he thought about the NFL's decision to fine those teams that allow their players to kneel during the playing of the National Anthem. Now understand that I think that the NFL could have gone further to ensure that the players that choose to come out on the field during the National Anthem stand and face the flag. Fining the team probably will not be enough to deter the type of behavior that we saw over the last couple of seasons. Perhaps suspending the offending player would have been a better solution.

But the President took his view just a tad too far for me. He said that the players should be required to be on the field standing proudly for the anthem. He further stated that if they did not want to do that, maybe they should not be playing. 'Maybe they should not be in this country,' He added.

No, understand, I realize that the NFL is a business and the fans are the customers. So anything that detracts from that business to the degree that it loses customers can be regulated. But I doubt that a player staying in the locker room would even be noticed unless some media person made a big deal out of it. And even then the vast majority of fans would not give a damn.

But for the President to infer that anyone that does not stand proudly for the National Anthem should be required to leave the country is way out of bounds. There are people in this country that believe that saying the Pledge of Allegiance or standing for the National Anthem is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.

3″You shall have no other gods before Me. 4"You shall not make for yourself an idol or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5″You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,...

That quote comes from The American Standard Version of the Bible.

Now I am sure there are many of you that would argue whether or not the flag fits the above description, but whether you believe that or not is not the point. There are those whose religion teaches that it does. To require those folks to stand at attention for the playing of the anthem or to stand with their hands over their heart would violate their religious beliefs. Some with similar beliefs, went to the gas chambers in Nazi Germany rather than to hold up their hands and recite Heil Hitler.

So while the President has the right to his opinion, that people should be proud of their flag and the men and women that gave their lives for it, he does not have the right to suggest that others who believe differently should be required to leave this country.

For the few hundred million of you that think I have lost my mind, please feel free to let me know that.

May 25, 2018

Isn't it time for the Democrats to become part of the solution and not the problem?

When I was a sales manager for a wireless reseller, one of the things we were repeatedly counseled on was to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. In other words, if we did not have an idea about how to make things better, we should not bitch about the way things were.

I have noticed that ever since Donald Trump was elected President, most Democrats continuously criticize what he does or does not do, but few if any of them offer solutions on how he could do the job better.

They criticize his desire to build a wall on our Southern Border, but they offer no alternative solution for keeping us safe from possible terrorists, drug dealers, and gang members that freely cross that border.

They rejected his idea of offering amnesty for 1.6 million illegal immigrants that they call "dreamers" but offered no better solution than to allow all illegals to stay in the country and do nothing to keep more from entering.

Recently in a news conference, the President was asked a question about the gang MS13. He responded saying that they were not people, they were animals. Of course, the Democrats immediately twisted those words, taking them out of context, saying that the President had called all immigrants animals. But you might say, surely they had a solution for dealing with these murderous thugs whose motto is Rape, Kill, and Control. Not even close. Other than to say that no humans should be referred to as animals, they offered not one idea of how to rein in their reign of terror.

I do find it interesting that these people object to calling the worst of the worst animals when most of them believe that mankind evolved from apes.

When the President said some unkind things about "Little Rocket Man," they criticized him, saying that he was playing with nuclear war. But none of them offered a solution for curbing a tyrant with nuclear missiles that was testing rockets that might be able to deliver those weapons of mass destruction to the mainland of the United States.

Then when the President got some concessions from North Korea, were the Democrats happy that we're making progress toward peace on the Korean Peninsula? No, just the contrary. They derided his efforts by saying that he was being played by Kim Jung Un. But once again, not one of them offered an idea of how he might be able to deal with the young dictator.

And then when it was announced that peace talks with North Korea were scheduled in June of this year, cries of derision rose from the Democrats of how foolish our President was to even try to sit down with the North Korean leadership.

And then the President, having a reasonable justification, called off the summit scheduled for June. Now surely the Democrats would be happy with his decision since they had echoed the idea that he should not be meeting with the young tyrant in the first place.

No wrong, again. Now they poked fun at the President saying that there goes his Nobel Peace Prize. And dear old Nancy Pelosi made fun of the letter that the President had sent to Kim announcing that he was pulling out of the summit because of Kim's threats to use nuclear weapons against us.

Never before in my lifetime have I seen so many people in our government actually rooting for us to fail. Rather than hoping for a successful and peaceful solution to a problem that has plagued us for over half a century, they seem happy and thankful that this President may not have the answer.

John Kerry is actually going to Iran and urging them not to give in to our President saying that he will not be in power for long anyway. I believe that is called giving comfort to the enemy and in times past was punished by firing squad.

It is clear to me that anyone that roots against our President is actually an enemy of our country. And in so doing have become a major part of the problem and in no way are part of the solution.

May 26, 2018

Is the mention of Jesus Christ inappropriate for a graduation speech?

So once again the dreaded censorship police has raised its ugly head. A Valedictorian in West Prairie High School in Illinois was prepared to give his speech when he was told that he had to remove all references to Jesus Christ from it or he would not be allowed to speak at all.

Now understand that this was not intended to be an hour-long sermon, he simply mentioned the role that Christ should play in our lives. No Bible verses were to be quoted, and no hymns were sung. Here is what he intended to say, "in life, we search for all these satisfactions [but] only Christ can supply these things."

After reading that one line, the principal told him that his entire speech was inappropriate for a graduation ceremony. While it is not specifically mentioned, I am sure that this principle was thinking of the dreaded separation of church and state mandate found in the Constitution of the United States. But wait you say, there is no such mandate to be found in the Constitution. And you would be correct. What it does say is that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.

Even under the most strenuous of interpretation, that clause would not forbid someone from mentioning the founder of their religion.

I have to ask if the mention had been of Mohammad or Buddha would the same prohibition be applied. I suspect that in our politically correct world that it would not have been. Religious leaders are quoted frequently in speeches before Congress and school assemblies. If you tried to find all the quotes from Martin Luther King that have been used, it would take you days if not weeks to come up with all of them.

The Pope (any Pope) has been quoted countless times. And Mother Teresa has as well. The purpose of the establishment clause was not to stop people from worshipping as they saw fit. It was to stop the Government from forcing the populous from worshipping as the government saw fit. It was explicitly aimed at their former Mother Country, and its State-mandated religion.

In a world where everyone sues at the drop of a hat, there may well be a lawsuit brought in this case. But that would be pointless as this young man's hard work to be the top scholastic member of his class and the honor of speaking at graduation cannot be restored.

I am sure that at some point, our President will be sued for his repeated use of the term "and may God bless the United States."

May 26, 2018

When is a spy, not a spy?

The news has been abuzz with President Trump's assertion that the FBI had placed a spy within his campaign. If true one would think that it would be much worse than anything that happened with Richard Nixon and Watergate.

Of course, the "intelligence" community flat out denied that this took place. But then we have to look back to when the President accused the Justice Department of wiretapping Trump towers during his campaign. That too was flatly denied. In fact, one of Fox News headliners, Shepard Smith came out and called the President a liar for even suggesting such a thing.

And then the revelations came out about FISA warrants being issued and several of Trump staffers being mentioned in those warrants. Of course, their names were not supposed to be unmasked, but that is another topic for discussion. Now did that amount to wiretapping, probably not but it did show that the government was surveilling Trump and his associates.

So now it has alluded that a spy had been introduced into the Trump inner circle by the FBI. When that was first mentioned, derision similar to the wiretapping claims came out. But the former Obama spy, James Clapper was asked about whether a spy was introduced into the campaign. He was less than candid with his answer, saying that if it did happen the government was keeping tabs on the Russians not on Trump and that was a good thing. Now, this man certainly would have known if surveillance into the Trump campaign was in fact, happening, but he cautiously avoided a direct answer. That in itself tells me that there was indeed such an individual.

So then the talk seemed to change to the definition of what a spy was. While denying that there was a spy in the campaign, they said that there might have been a confidential informant assigned to the Trump Campaign. So one might ask what is the difference between a confidential informant and a spy?

The definition of a confidential informant is a person who provides information to the police or the government and whose identity is kept secret. In other words, someone who watches a person or group of persons for the sole purpose of reporting about their activities without that person or group of persons knowing that it is happening. That sounds a lot like a spy to me.

So when is a spy, not a spy? It appears that it is when the Democrats use an undercover informant to do their dirty work.

So then Clapper was asked if President Barak Obama knew about what was going on. He was quite adamant that he was sure that Obama did not know. But in light of the text messages between two FBI lovers, talking about Trump, one of which said POTUS wants to know everything that is happening, that was surely a lie.

We might recall, that a President of the United States was forced to resign for a lot less than what is now coming to light about Obama and his Injustice Department. Of course, we can't force Obama to resign. But if we had someone that had not recused himself from anything that might happen in connection with the Trump campaign, we might be able to send a former President and his cronies to prison. I personally think Barak would look very good in an orange jumpsuit.

May 27, 2018

Do you know their names?

It seems that every time that a young black person has an altercation with police, their names become memorialized by marchers that take to the streets across the country deriding all police. Names like Michael Brown and Dante Parker are etched into our minds by the mainstream media and by the organization Black Lives Matter.

But when a police officer's life is snuffed out by some low life that perhaps has been egged on by the perceived injustice reported endlessly by a headline seeking journalist or activist.

All too often, brave officers put on their uniform and leave the house, to protect and serve the populace and never return again. This year alone, there have been 37 police officers killed in the line of duty. How much coverage has been given to them?

Here is a list of officer killed in the line of duty just this year:

January 5, Lieutenant Christopher Robateau. Survived by his wife and 3 children.

January 7, Officer Chris Beaudoin. Survived by wife and 2 children.

January 7, Deputy Sheriff Daniel McCartney. Survived by wife and 3 children.

January 16, Detective Michael Doty. Survived by wife and children.

January 18, Deputy United States Marshal Christopher David Hill. Survived by wife and 2 children.

January 24, Deputy Sheriff Heath Gumm. Survived by wife and other family members.

January 25, Officer Glenn Doss, Jr. Survived by girlfriend and 9-month old son.

February 5, Deputy Sheriff Micah Flick. Survived by wife and 7-year-old twins.

February 7, Officer David Sherrard. Survived by wife and 2 daughters.

February 9, Officer Chase Maddox. Survived by wife, a young child, and unborn baby.

February 10, Officer Anthony Morelli. Survived by wife and two children.

February 10, Officer Eric Joering. Survived by wife and 4 daughters.

February 13, Commander Paul Bauer. Survived by wife and daughter.

February 13, Officer Darren Weathers. Survived by wife and daughter.

February 17, Deputy Sheriff Kevin Stanton. Survived by family.

February 20, Officer Justin Billa. Survived by wife and young son.

March 1, Deputy Sheriff Alexis Locklear. Survived by 4-year-old child and other family.

March 2, Deputy Sheriff Jacob Pickett. Survived by family.

March 3, Officer Rodney Smith. Survived by wife, six children, and three grandchildren.

March 6, Officer Ryan Morton. Survived by parents and siblings.

March 9, Officer Greggory Casillas. Survived by wife and two children.

March 11, Deputy Sheriff David Lee'Sean Manning. Survived by his fiancé and daughter.

March 13, Officer Scotty Hamilton. Survived by wife and infant daughter.

March 15, Deputy Sheriff Ryan Zirkle. Survived by fiancé, two brothers, and his parents.

April 6, Corporal Dale Hallman. Survived by wife, unborn child and two children.

April 9, Officer Keith Earle. Survived by family.

April 12, Officer Sean Gannon. Survived by wife, parents, and siblings.

April 19, Sgt. Noel Ramirez. Survived by wife and two children.

April 19, Deputy Sheriff Taylor Lindsey. Survived by family.

April 20, Deputy Casey Shoemate. Survived by fiancé and two children.

April 22, Officer Tamby Yagan. Survived by a 7-year-old son and other family.

April 24, Officer Rogelio Santander. Survived by family.

April 25, Deputy Sheriff Eugene Cole. Survived by family.

April 27, Officer Jesus Chuy Cordova. Survived by wife, two children, and unborn baby.

May 4, Officer Rob Pitts. Survived by family.

May 7, Deputy Sheriff William Gentry. Survived by family.

May 21, Officer Amy Caprio. Killed in the line of duty six days before her birthday and a few days before going on vacation with her husband.

The saddest thing while I am writing this is that it was so hard to find out any information on these brave human beings. What I have no doubt of is that they gave their lives serving their communities and fellow citizens. But no marchers are deriding those responsible for their deaths. No group is marching on Washington declaring that Blue Lives Matter. But each of them is sorely missed by friends family and fellow officers.

I hope that someday those that protect and serve will be revered as much as the few who some feel are unjustly killed by police.

May 28, 2018

How many do you remember?

Today is a day that has been set aside for the remembrance of those that have died in combat, in keeping our country free. I heard a quote this morning while watching Fox News that there have been more than 1 million that have died in the various wars that our country has fought. I thought that sounded like a low number since I knew that over 600,000 died in the Civil War alone.

Well, I am not one to let something like that stay unanswered, so I did a little research, and I came up with 1,312,000 that have died in just the wars that you might recall. The vast majority of those were in the Civil War 620,000, World War I 116,708, World War II 420,000, Korea 36,900, and Viet Name 58,220.

Add to those, The American Revolution, 25,000, The War of 1812 15,000, The Mexican War 13,200, The Spanish American War 3,000, Granada 19, Panama Invasion 23, Desert Storm 383 and 4,424 in Iraq and Afghanistan since the attacks on September 11, 2001.

If might surprise some, that more Americans were killed in the Civil War than in World War II, but you must remember that every soldier that died in the Civil War was an American. And the battles in that war were some of the bloodiest in history. One need look no further than Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg. Lee orders Pickett's Division, about 15000 men to charge the Union Position in the face of Cannon across open ground. Later, when Lee saw Pickett with tears streaming down his face, he orders him back to his division. Pickett's reply, "I no longer have a division."

And far more American's died in the various Indian Wars. Keep in mind that the settlers were not the only Americans killed in those wars. The Indians were perhaps more American than whites. And no estimates of Indian deaths could I find.

So while you are enjoying your burgers and hotdogs, take time to give a little prayer for the many more than a million who have died so that you could be free on this day. And please take a few more moments to remember the thousands of police and firefighters that have died to keep you safe.

May 30, 2018

Are you tired of political correctness?

When I was growing up as a young boy, there was a short poem that we were all taught. Now, notice that I did not say as a young kid. That might offend someone. I don't know who, perhaps the animal rights people that might take umbrage at having the name of a young goat assigned to a child.

But, I digress. The poem was, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." That simply meant "don't sweat the petty stuff." You might have to defend yourself against a physical attack but ignore it when someone calls you names. And of course, they did call you names and sometimes you could ignore it and sometimes a black eye was called for.

But, somewhere between when I was knee-high to a grasshopper and our modern-day, the political correctness crowd was formed. Is that phrase okay, or does that denote something bad about grasshoppers? Almost everything has become objectionable to some segment of our society?

No reference to skin color is allowed. I wonder why being referred to by the color of your skin is so horrendous? If some person looked at me and said that I was a white man, I would not take exception to that characterization. For that is what I am, although I have never done the 23 and me thing where I might find out that my ancestors were not all white. And I am sure of that beyond a shadow of a doubt since the first man was named Adam, which means red of the earth.

For the first couple of centuries, "Native American's" were referred to as Indians, and no one took exception to that categorization until the political correctness crowd showed up. Then all of a sudden, being called an Indian was unacceptable. So I wonder how the people that live in India feel about that. Of course, we know why Columbus referred to the indigenous people he found in the "East Indies" as Indians. He believed that he had landed in India since that is where he set out for at the beginning of his voyage.

But now being called an Indian, unless you live in the country of India, is a bad thing. It is so terrible that the football team from Washington has to change its name, the baseball team in Cleveland, likewise and heaven forbid if Cleveland's mascot ever steps on the field again waving a tomahawk.

It dawns on me that John Wayne could probably not make a movie today since his cry of "the people are coming" get to the fort would not have the same clout.

Now, of course, we must realize that these prohibitions do not apply to everyone in the same way. It is acceptable for people like Farrakhan to call for the extermination of white people and Jewish people. For it has been claimed that no one other than whites can be racists.

So what started my rant this morning? It was Roseanne Barr being fired by ABC for making a comment off the air about someone that used to be in the Obama administration. Now, she has asked us not to try and defend her, and I will honor her wishes.

But I will also not try to defend Fox News for their blatant attempt to kiss the boots of ABC for having standards. These so-called morning journalists make it sound as if what Roseanne said in a tweet was the worst thing that anyone has ever said before. It doesn't matter that Joy Behar and the rest of her cohorts on "The View" say far worse things about President Trump almost daily when they are on the air and have immunity from being fired because the target of their derision is not only white but the President.

It also doesn't matter that Jimmy Kimmel also attacks the President while on the air and has no repercussions what-so-ever.

Now, I understand that Roseanne should have known better. The person she was talking about was not only not white but was of the wrong religious affiliation. So that combination was definitely off-limits when it came to making a joke.

What you could get away with just a few years ago, is poison today. It doesn't matter that the 1st amendment gives Roseanne or anyone else the freedom to express themselves. Of course, it does not guarantee that there will not be consequences when you exercise that freedom. But I do think there should be a distinction made for what someone says while on their free time, such as what Roseanne said and what they say while on the air as an emissary of ABC. The latter should be judged far more severely than the former.

I hate political correctness.

June 1, 2018

Do you believe in censorship?

The first amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to speak our minds freely. It will be pointed out by many that freedom is not absolute. You may be able to speak freely, but you may have to face the consequences when you do. I am sure that it has not always been the case.

The following quote in some form or another has been attributed to many different people, from Voltaire to Patrick Henry to Evelyn Beatrice Hall. "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." They did not say that they would fight to the death for your right to say something but that if you do, I hope you get fired.

So at the beginning of this Country, the controversy that has developed over free speech would have been met with derision. This morning on Fox News they had a female Liberal and a male Conservative arguing about whether there is a double standard between how Roseanne and her supposedly racist comment was treated differently than Samantha Bee's vile and despicable comment about Ivanka Trump.

Not surprisingly, the liberal blamed everything on The President of the United States. When challenged, she said that this one comment by Bee may not have been the fault of the President, but it is evident that since he has been elected that people had become far more hateful to one another than they were when we were growing up. And of course, she is half right. It is not just since Donald Trump was elected President that our tolerance for other people has deteriorated. Our standards of speech have been changing ever since the First Amendment was ratified.

When I was in school, I had a teacher that said that profanity was a feeble mind attempting to express itself. And I happen to agree with that statement. Even in comedy, I find the use of foul language to detract from the performer's act. I found people like Bill Cosby and Gallagher (who never used profanity in their acts) far funnier than people like George Carlin who threw out the "f-word" almost constantly.

And at that time you never heard profanity on Television or Radio. It just did not happen. And sexual situations were not considered to be entertainment. Even Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz, who were married in real life as well as on television were not allowed to sleep in the same bed on the show. There were no television shows like we have today.

If a young man wanted to see a bare breast, he had to find a copy of his Father's Playboy or Penthouse, magazine and hope that he didn't get caught looking at it before he could put it back where he found it.

But over time, all that has changed. I remember in the early 80's when Channel 15 in Phoenix, Arizona began broadcasting soft pornography after 10 p.m. To make money and to make sure that only those that wanted the service, a subscription, and specialized equipment was required to view it. Looking back, those shows that were so well protected were not nearly as bad as much of what we see on prime time television today.

And political satire has changed drastically as well. Some of my favorite books were written by Will Rogers and Art Buchwald, but who poked fun at the political arena. But they rarely poked fun at individuals. And they never uttered the vile vitriol that so-called comediennes do today. Here is an example of one of Roger's sayings that I remember. Someone told him that a Congressman had asked to introduce one of Roger's articles into the Congressional Record. Another Congressman stood up and said that the strongly objected to having a professional comic read into the Congressional Record. Rogers took exception to that and gave this reply. "A professional comic? Why what I say aren't half as funny as what those birds do. The only difference is that when I crack a joke, that is all it is, a joke and I doesn't hurt anyone. When those birds crack a joke, it becomes law and is bound to hurt somebody, usually everybody."

Today the comic would half to utter a half dozen profane words and maybe call for the assassination of the offending party.

I wish that we could go back to the way things were back then, but we can't. No amount of legislation will ever make our politicians and "entertainers" return to the civility of what I think was a much better time in our Country. So all that I can hope for is that perhaps we can find a way to treat both sides of the political spectrum in an equal manner.

If a conservative is to be fired for something that she utters, then a liberal uttering similar offensive comments should be fired as well. Or better yet, neither one should be fired for saying what they have on their mind. After all, if we find someone's tweets offensive, do we not have the ability to stop following those people. If we find something that a celebrity says on the air, do we not have the ability to change the channel? Why today we don't even have to get up off the couch to turn the channel unless of course, the kids have misplaced the remote.

So let's talk for a few moments about two separate events that have happened this week. The first was Roseanne Barr's tweet, where she used the words Muslim Brotherhood and the Planet of the Apes when referring to Valerie Jarret. The second was when Samantha Bee called the President's daughter, the "C-word." Roseanne issued an apology and was summarily fired. Samantha Bee issued an apology and was given an award. So what is the difference between the two incidences? Well, Roseanne's object of derision was a liberal, and Samantha Bee's was a conservative. Well, perhaps I shouldn't say that Ivanka Trump is a conservative. I doubt that even her father would fit that description. But they are viewed in that light by the main-stream media.

Now if we are going to apply Voltaire's words to either situation, neither one of them should have been fired. And really there is no comparison between the two. Roseanne's words should have been taken as a joke. And give me a break what she said was not even borderline offensive compared with a lot of what is said daily without any repercussions. What Samantha Bee called Ivanka Trump was so vile that even though I write Erotica, I would not use the word in one of my stories.

But you see the previous paragraph is my personal opinion. And I should be free to express that and if those reading it find it offensive they can call me out for it or they can just not read anything else that I right.

Now if ABC or TBS would lose viewers because of what these two said, they have the right to take action against the offending parties. But, give me a break, ABC would have picked up viewers to the Roseanne show, and I doubt that TBS would have lost viewers as well.

I think the sad part is that we are arguing over which personality should be fired. Neither should be fired. Disagree openly with what they said, but understand that if you side with censorship against either of these people, you are giving up your own right to free speech.

June 20, 2018

Is we are all immigrants a valid argument?

I have listened to the argument for and against immigration for what seems like forever. On one side the Republicans say that we need to protect our borders. They believe that if someone wants to come into the country to live that they need to do it the right way. There are legitimate ports of entry, and anyone that comes into the country should do so at one of those and apply for legal entry status there.

Other people say that anyone that wants to live in our country should be allowed to do so. They don't mind if they come into the country illegally. Once they are here, we must take them in and help them to assimilate into our culture. Some of this latter group have an ulterior motive. They are called Democrats, and they want as many people as possible in their districts as long as they believe that these people will vote for them. Even if you point out that some of these new people are violent criminals, it does not matter because even violent criminals should be allowed to vote as long as they vote for a Democrat.

And then some just ordinary people realize that their ancestors came here from other countries and so they believe that since we were all immigrants at one time or another that we should allow anyone who wishes to immigrate to the United States.

My wife and I had the opportunity to interact with one such person when we took a few days to visit one of her relatives. I knew that he was a lifelong Democrat and so I vowed before we got to his house that I would not discuss politics with him. But that was not even remotely a possibility. He laid such sly and devious plans to draw me into the web that I did not even realize what was happening until he was telling me what a terrible person my President was. And of course, part of the reason that Donald Trump was a horrible person was his stand on illegal immigration.

He brought out a family history book that someone had put together for his family and pointed out that his family had immigrated from Europe at some time in the past. I have to admit that I found the story fascinating, and we began to talk about it. It was then that he sprang another trap. "Where did your folks come from?" He asked.

"I am not sure," I replied. "Some came from Germany, like yours."

"So you see why we must allow people who want to come here to be allowed to do so."

"It is a different time and different circumstances," I replied.

"How is it different?" And now his voice was changing, a little more volume and with an adamant tone.

I tried to explain to him that there was a time when we had room for everyone that wanted to come here as long as they were willing to work hard and become self-sufficient. In fact, in the early days of our country, we needed as many people as we could get to come here so that we could hold on to the land.

But he did not buy the argument. He was convinced that we still had plenty of room for as many people as wished to immigrate. And of course, when you travel across sections of the country, there are miles and miles of empty space. In fact, it is probably true that there is far more land without houses then land that has been built on. Of course, much of that so-called empty land is used to grow food not only for people that live here but people that live in other countries as well.

But even if that land was not needed for agriculture, who would pay for the houses for these new people to live in? Who would pay for the wells that would need to be drilled to provide water for these new people to drink, bathe, and wash their clothes? Who will pay for the power that these folks would need to light, cool, or warm their houses?

All of the people that came to this country in centuries past did not rely on someone else to support them. There was no welfare for them to rely on. Some of them sold themselves into servitude for a period of years just to pay for their sea passage to get to this country. Only when they had served their time as little more than slaves were they given a section of land and a mule so they could make a life for themselves.

It is estimated that up to 90% of illegal immigrant households are on some type of public assistance. Does that seem fair to you? When we have people that were born and lived here all their lives that are homeless, and yet we provide food and shelter for others that cross our borders in the dead of night.

I am not against people immigrating to the United States. We allow 1 million people to immigrate here every year. Some of them are productive people, coming here with skills and trades that are needed. Others are not so productive and need some degree of help to assimilate. I would argue that those types of people should not have been allowed to immigrate. It simply does not make sense to me that we should allow people into our country that are not self-sufficient. Call me heartless if you wish, but I would rather spend our tax dollars helping our own citizens than helping those from other countries.

But that brings us back to the argument that we are all immigrants. And again I say that was a different time when we had room for everyone.

I tried to explain that to my wife's relative by using the illustration of putting a glass in the middle of his white carpet. Even as I write this, I realize my mistake. Some of you will zero in on the word white. You only want to protect what is white, you will say. If it were a black carpet, you wouldn't care what happened to it. Then start filling that glass slowly with sulfuric acid. Nothing terrible happens until the acid reaches the brim of the glass. But once there is no more room for the acid inside of the glass if you keep pouring your carpet is ruined.

Just in case that illustration is not clear enough for you, here is another. Imagine that you have a beautiful large house for you and your family to live in. One night you decide to take the family out for a movie. You are gone for a few hours.

When you return home, you are surprised to find that another family has moved into your house. They were not invited and did not enter through the front door. Instead, one of them broke a window, crawled in, and then let the rest in through the back door.

You immediately ask them to leave. They tell you that they have as much right to live in your house as you do since at some point in the past you moved into the house. Perhaps that is not true, maybe you were born in the house, but they tell you that doesn't matter because someone in your ancestry had moved into that house. So you have no more right to live there than they do.

You call the police but are told that they will not force these people to vacate the property. They are a sanctuary police station they say. Anyone that moves into the precinct is protected from eviction. So you try to make the best of the situation as this new family lounges in your living room, watching your television, snacking on the food in your refrigerator, or your pantry.

But your reason, there is enough room in the house. But then they call their relatives and tell them what a nice cozy place they are living in and invite them to come to live there as well. Pretty soon, there is not a corner of your house that is not occupied by someone not related to you. Your budget becomes stretched to the breaking point, just trying to keep everyone fed. And still, their relatives keep coming. You wish that you had built a large tall wall around your house before all these people arrived.

As ridiculous as that illustration sounds that is exactly what is happening to our country. Yes, we were all immigrants. But that does not mean that all immigrants should be allowed to come here. I will not get into an argument about people taking jobs that are needed for our own citizens. Trump's economy is so good that it has been touted that we have more jobs now than we have people to fill them.

But if that is the case, then why are 90% of illegal immigrants on public assistance?

The only solution is to keep people from entering the country illegally. If that means building a wall, then let's create a wall. If that means putting more border patrol agents on the border, then put them there. If that means changing the law so that anyone caught entering illegally is immediately deported back to where they came from then so be it.

At some point, we have to say enough is enough. Immigration has to become selective. Only those that can contribute to our society should be allowed to come and live here. And that means securing the border.

June 22, 2018

I have no sympathy for illegal immigrants.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing people cry and moan over these poor migrant people that are trying to sneak into our country and are caught and detained at the border. I know many of you will say that makes me a terrible person and if that is the mantra that you want to put on me, I am willing to wear it. But I will remind you that these people came here of their own free will. They were not drove here like cattle. Nobody put a gun to their heads and told them that if they did not sneak across the United States border, they would be killed. And even though they are detained, they are not abused in any way. They have a roof over their heads, a place to sleep at night, and three meals a day provided at no cost to them. If they are sick or injured, they have free medical assistance provided to them. How many of you get all those benefits at no cost to you.

Hopefully, their internment will be short. As soon as is reasonably possible, they should face an immigration judge and sent back to the countries from which they came. We have no room or money to spend on any more illegals in this country.

This morning I heard a border patrol agent state that the number being bandied about, 15 million illegal immigrants in our country is grossly underestimated. He said that was the number of illegals that were estimated to be in our country in 2004, and every year since then, approximately 1.5 million more have snuck across our borders. That would put the number of illegals presently in our country at 36 million.

According to an estimate by the Department of Human Services, 90% of all illegal families are receiving some type of public assistance. According to Wikipedia, over 1.5 million of our own citizens are either homeless or living in some type of transitional housing. Many of our own children go to bed hungry every night while we provide free food to illegal criminals. Many of our veterans, who risked their lives to protect us from some of these same people that have snuck across our borders are living under bridges or in a cardboard box. If you have tears to shed, shed them for these brave men and women who are being neglected while our resources are being squandered on people that have no business being in our country.

One of the strongest deterrents we had to discourage people from entering our country illegally is that they knew that if they were caught, their families would be separated while their status was worked out. I am sorry that our President knuckled under to the pressure of Democrats that have no intention of helping to solve the problem and passed an executive order to keep these families together. More than likely that will lead to many of them being released into the country because they cannot be processed quickly enough to satisfy the existing law.

Something has to be done to stop the flow of people across our Southern Border. I don't know if building a wall would completely stop it, but it would help, especially if the wall constructed made it more challenging to climb than what we presently have in places. It made me sick to my stomach to see these criminals sitting atop the wall in California, thumbing their noses at the immigration people.

As I stated above, I have no sympathy for illegal immigrants. In fact, I believe that all immigration into this country should be stopped until we find a way to provide housing for every one of our homeless citizens. Not one more illegal should eat off of our public programs while one of our own children go to bed hungry. If that makes me a terrible person, so be it.

June 27, 2018

Thank God, Hillary lost the election.

One of the main reasons that I advocated for the election of Donald Trump was the breakdown of the Supreme Court. If Clinton had won the court would have been at best 5-4 liberal-leaning. I personally do not believe that Anton Scalia died of natural causes. I think that he was assassinated in an attempt to make sure that no matter what happened in the election a liberal justice would be appointed. I am sure that many people will label me a conspiracy nut for that idea, but keep in mind that the Clintons are connected to over 100 strange and in some cases impossible to believe deaths. Is it that big a stretch to wonder if she might want to remove a conservative Justice so that she would be able to start her Presidency with a favorable liberal court?

I don't often agree with Mitch McConnell but his decision not to allow a vote on Merit Garland was a savior for our country.

If Clinton had won, we would have had a liberal justice in Neil Gorsuch's place. Several of the decisions of the past few days would have gone differently than they did.

The Court upheld Trump's travel ban, which was intended to keep terrorists out of our country. This was a 5-4 decision and certainly would have gone the other way if Gorsuch was replaced by a liberal.

Of course, if Clinton had been elected, there would not have been a travel ban to uphold or vote down. Clinton would have not only opened our borders and allowed almost anyone to flood across but would have invited hundreds of thousands from terrorist countries to take up residence in our communities.

Another ruling that came down this morning in a 5-4 decision ruled in favor of non-union employees in the case from Illinois. These workers who were not union member sued to stop the practice of the union collecting dues from them even though they did not join, nor did they agree with the methods of the union. Because of this ruling, these workers will no longer be charged union dues unless they expressly agree to have such dues deducted from their checks.

The union had argued that these workers were getting the benefit of the bargaining power of the union and should, therefore, have to pay for that benefit. Of course, the Democrats are crying in their beer because they need the unions to have as much money as possible to give them to support their campaigns.

While these are just two examples of how the court is changed because of Gorsuch, many more will be brought in the next two to six years that will impact the way our freedoms are treated by the government. Hopefully, a couple of the dinosaurs on the court will retire, and Trump will appoint more conservative justices to take their place before a case for gun control reaches the court.

Again thank God, for President Trump.

June 30, 2018

What is their legacy?

We hear it ever so often, what will this president's legacy become? For some, it is a positive thing, and for others, it may be something that they would not be proud of.

For some, their legacy is relatively easy to pick one or two things. For instance, George Washington is known as the father of our country. That is because not only was he the first President, but also because if it had not been for his leadership during the Revolutionary War, there would have been no country to be president of.

For Thomas Jefferson, he is known as the drafter of the Declaration of Independence, but that was a long time before he became president. His legacy probably is the Louisiana Purchase where for 15 million dollars he bought the entire middle of what is now the United States from France. That opened up millions of miles of land to be settled and paved the way to the Pacific Ocean.

James Monroe is best known for what became called the Monroe Doctrine. That document simply put said that the United States would not meddle in European affairs and that we expected that Europe would not intervene in the Western Hemisphere. Sometimes I wished we had stuck to that idea, but if we had, we might all be speaking German today.

Andrew Jackson was known as the hero of New Orleans, although history buffs know and understand that battle had nothing to do with winning the War of 1812. The war was over before it was fought. What Jackson's legacy should be is his cruel and despicable treatment of the Native population of the country. You might recall that he forced the Indian Nations off of their land so that it could be populated by whites. This became known as the Trail of Tears where over 4000 Native Americans died during that relocation.

Abraham Lincoln had two things that became his legacy. Although whether he had become President or not the Civil War would have been fought, Lincoln's dogged persistence to save the Union was why the North won and why the United States still was the United States. The second is the Emancipation Proclamation which freed the slaves in all states that were still fighting against the Union.

Lincoln's successor's legacy was that he was so corrupt that he became the first President ever to be impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors. And he came within one vote in the Senate of being the only President to be removed because of impeachment.

Franklin Roosevelt had a couple of things that became his legacy. His most notable achievement was The New Deal, where he moved the United States toward socialism, the most notable part of that was Social Security. He also became the only President in history to serve more than two terms as President. His speech of not changing horses in the middle of the stream probably made that possible.

Give 'em hell, Harry Truman has perhaps the most ignoble legacy, being the only President to use atomic weapons on an enemy. That legacy gets mixed reviews among historians and the populace. Had he not killed nearly a million Japanese with two nuclear bombs, thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of American soldiers would have died trying to end the Second World War.

John Kennedy didn't really have time to create a legacy. I believe that his desire to end the Vietnam Conflict led to his being assassinated. Had that attempt failed perhaps he would have ended that disastrous war.

Lyndon Johnson kept that war going and the chants of "hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today," many still remember. But perhaps his legacy is "The Great Society," which was the beginning of socialized medicine in the United States. And that was maybe also the beginning of the monstrous increases in the cost of healthcare.

Richard Nixon has the dubious distinction of being the only President to be forced to resign for office. The Watergate scandal ruined what was otherwise a stellar Presidency, which included the opening of trade with the world's most populous country, China.

Jimmy Carter also has a black mark on his Presidency. He allowed Iran to hold our embassy personnel hostage for 444 days. He later remarked that he did not use force to get them back because he was a Christian. Maybe he should have told us that his faith would interfere with his duties as President when he was running for that office.

Ronald Reagan's legacy has to be the removal of the Berlin wall and the end to the Cold War. While the wall did not come down during his Presidency, no reasonable person would argue that his policies did not lead to that event.

Bill Clinton would like you to believe that his legacy was balancing the Federal budget, but in fact, his real legacy was lying to Congress and becoming the second President to become impeached. Oh, and turning the White House into a brothel might be added to that list.

George W. Bush has the legacy of starting the longest war in American history. And many would say that he lied about weapons of mass destruction to rally the American people behind that effort. Personally, I think there were weapons of mass destruction since Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people. I believe, many of those chemicals were moved into Syria and are still being used today.

Some would say that Barak Obama's legacy would be that he was the first Black President, although his mixed blood would belie that claim. His real legacy was that he hated America so severely that he went on a tour throughout the world apologizing for his country. Of course, others would say that The Affordable Care Act was his legacy since that was the only meaningful piece of legislation he got passed in 8 years in office. But even that is now being laid waste to since the Individual Mandate is no longer a part of it and it is bound to die a slow death.

So now we come to the legacy of Donald Trump. What will it be? He already has done more in a year, and a half for the good of the United States than most President's do in two full terms. His Tax Cuts and Jobs act has brought thousands of jobs back to the United States. Remember Obama saying that we should stop talking about manufacturing jobs because they were gone and were never coming back again. I guess he did not take into account that a businessman might be elected President. For thousands of those types of jobs have been repatriated as well.

Obama also claimed that we would never again see 3% GDP again. But under Trump's leadership, we already have 3% GDP, and it is projected that this year we may see more than 4% growth.

Another of Trump's accomplishments is the Supreme Court. His appointment of Neil Gorsuch is already paying dividends, and if he can appoint someone that believes in the principles of the Constitution to replace Anthony Kennedy, the court may be changed for decades.

And we do not want to forget that he has opened a dialogue with North Korea that may see the end of the Korean Conflict. You might remember that war never ended when hostilities ceased in 1952. No peace treaty was ever signed. That well could become Donald Trump's legacy.

Of course, his promise to seal the Southern Border is still being worked on. Should that be completed another possible item to be added to his legacy?

When you look at the legacies of those considered to be among the greatest Presidents of all time, you only find one or two things that they are remembered for. When you consider what he has done in a short period, Donald Trump has to be mentioned among the greatest Presidents this country has ever had.

Just remember that the election this fall will determine whether we have a Congress that buys into Trump's vision for America or if we will have a Congress dead set on destroying his legacy at all costs. You the American people must decide.

July 16, 2018

Will the truth finally come out?

I wondered why the Democrats were, so hell-bent that Trump not meet with Putin. Some speculated that they were just trying to be obstructionists, but perhaps something deeper and more sinister may have been behind their objections to this summit.

It was not, however, until the post-summit press conference when the Russian President and our President were taking questions that the motive may have come to light. Of course, the press is adamant that Putin and the Russians were behind what they call election meddling. But again Putin denied those allegations. But not only did he deny the allegations, but he also made an offer that might well put an end to this nonsense. He said he would allow Mueller to question the 12 Russians he got a Grand Jury to indict, but he asked only that his intelligence people got to question those in our government that brought the charges of Russian meddling in the election.

Of course, our intelligence people will never agree to that since they more than likely were behind this whole scheme to discredit a duly elected President of the United States. Remember the text messages between the FBI lovers. Lisa Page begged her lover to tell her that Trump would not become President and of course, the response that should be etched into our brains was "No, he won't. We'll stop him."

Now how could a lone FBI agent stop an election? Of course, he could not. But remember the words, "We'll stop him." Some probably took that to mean that Strzok and Page would be the ones to stop the Trump train. But what if the "we" included other members of the intelligence community. What if he was referring to a deep state conspiracy to alter our election? Remember that the Clinton campaign had paid for a dossier that supposedly was supposed to cast a giant shadow on Trump's character. That is not speculation, but solid fact and yet no charges of meddling have been leveled against any member of the Clinton campaign. The only innuendo against our President has been brought forward with no proof or substantiation what-so-ever. Why is Trump under investigation while Hillary and her cohorts are left entirely alone?

Perhaps if we take Putin up on his offer, we will get to the bottom of this witch hunt. I always wondered what purpose Russia could have in meddling with our election. Trump was not a known entity. There was no indication that he could be manipulated by the Russian government. Of course, I suppose they could have just been curious about whether it could be done or not, but that is a stretch of the imagination at best. But Obama, Clinton, and other high ranking Democrats did have reason to meddle in our election. Obama was scared to death that every nefarious thing he accomplished while in office would be wiped off the books with a Trump election. Hillary, of course, had the most to gain and the most to lose from that election. If she lost the election, there was a genuine possibility of her going to prison, perhaps for the rest of her life. Remember the chants of lock her up during the election. Those chants were not without basis. If anyone else had committed the crimes that she did, they would have been put in a cell, and the key is thrown away. And the Democrats that helped her cheat Bernie Sanders out of the nomination might be sharing a cell next to hers. And of course, there are the corrupt members of the FBI and more than likely the CIA as well that helped her put together a phony dossier on Trump.

When Trump actually won the election, these entities had no choice but to find some way to throw the hounds off of their trail. But better way than to throw a "red herring" into the fray? So almost immediately they devised a plan to make it appear that Trump's electoral win was not legitimate. Now, comes the ridiculous charge that Trump somehow colluded with the Russians to swing the election in his direction. The CIA more than likely planted breadcrumbs that pointed to the Russians, were behind the attacks on the DNC servers. They have spent decades observing the patterns used by foreign governments in cyber warfare. It would not be much of a stretch to assume they would be capable of making it appear that anyone they wished was responsible.

It was brought out that the majority of our intelligence agencies agreed that Russia was behind those cyber attacks. It is also notable that not one piece of evidence was offered to back up those claims. They got away with that by claiming they had to safeguard our National Security, something they throw out every time they do not want to explain something to the public. There was no need for evidence because the American people would believe anything that our intelligence community put forward. Now to throw anyone that did not buy into the ruse off the trail. They needed someone to get the ball rolling in the direction they wished. And Comey stepped up like a good little puppy dog and did his part. He committed a crime by giving classified information to a friend to leak to the press with the sole purpose of getting a special counsel appointed to investigate Trump.

It should be noted that he has never been indicted for that crime, nor has anyone even suggested that he be. And it should be noted that the special counsel was an old friend and former boss of his Robert Mueller. How convenient is that?

It also should be noted that the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions was forced to recuse himself before all this intrigue took place. He had to be forced out of the way so that another of the conspirators, Rod Rosenstein could be the one to appoint Mueller. And again Sessions was attacked with no real evidence, but he was so Lilly-livered that he knuckled under to the Democrats and recused himself from all things, Russian. Perhaps, since the Russians had nothing to do with meddling in our elections, he should step back up to the plate and do his job by firing Rosenstein and Mueller.

Of course, you can label me a conspiracy theorist, but what you cannot do is ignore that Putin has offered to help in this investigation. You may say that he offered, knowing that his help would not be accepted, but perhaps it should be. After all, the Democrats and our press have accused him loud and clear. It has always been one of the prerequisites of our way of justice, that the accused has the right to face his accusers. Many times when that happens, the accusers turn out to be criminals. And I believe that Putin deserves the chance to show who really is behind this scandal. I am equally sure that our intelligence community does not want him to have that chance. If the truth comes out, heads are sure to roll, and I doubt they will be Russian heads.

July 17, 2018

An open letter to Fox News.

It saddens me to find that the only news outlet that has consistently called itself fair and balanced that you have decided to join the rest of the Fake News in declaring a National Dump on Trump day. Hopefully, it will not become a National Dump on Trump week or National Dump on Trump year.

So why have you decided to join with the rest of the witch hunt? You say it is because Trump did not call Putin a bald-faced liar to his face when he denied having anything to do with meddling in the 2016 Presidential election. How would that have helped world peace or the lessening of nuclear tensions?

And apparently, you have bought into the theory that Russia did, in fact, meddle in our election. You cite that the majority of our intelligence community have declared that as a fact. But, don't you find it slightly discomforting that the intelligence community has never released even a tidbit of evidence to prove that allegations? Because of what they call National Security issues, we have to just take their word for that. Do you not think that the CIA has the ability to plant evidence pointing toward Russia and the Trump campaign?

So, let's delve into that slightly. In any court of law, one of the prerequisites to find a guilty verdict is to establish a motive for the crime. No one has even come close to pointing out why Russia would find the need to meddle in our election. I ask you what their motive was?

On the other hand, we don't have to look very far to see the motive of the Democrats and the liberal media for pushing the idea that Trump colluded with the Russians to secure his election. But you may argue that surely not all the intelligence people could be that corrupt. It is now an established fact that the FBI and the Justice Department were corrupt in the cover-up of the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal. No other person in the country could have destroyed evidence, such as bleach bitting their hard drives and beating their phones to a pulp with a hammer without being brought before a court of law for obstruction of justice. No other person in the country could have conveniently lost 30,000 emails and not be called to account for it. But not one of Hillary's cohorts were brought to justice for that crime. If the FBI had not been corrupt, she could not have gotten away with that

And the meeting with Clinton's husband on the tarmac in Arizona by the then-Attorney General, in what was supposed to never come to light proves beyond any doubt that Lynch was complicit in the cover-up as well.

So why is it hard to believe that the CIA and other entities that answered to the same boss, Barak Obama might also want to plant evidence to give Clinton an excuse for one of the most devastating losses in Presidential Election history?

I thought for sure that at least Mike Wallace would have been fair and impartial in his interview, but it was quickly evident that he was like all the rest of the reporters, trying to force his own ideas on his guest instead of listening respectfully when Putin decided to answer his questions. Perhaps if he had allowed Putin to answer the questions, he might have learned why it made no sense for Russia to meddle in our election.

And your entire crew joining in on the Trump beat down today makes me wonder why I ever trusted your news outlet. You might just as well have put up a sign, "We hate Trump" instead of claiming to be "fair and balanced."

Just remember, if Hillary had been elected we would never have known about the corruption within our own government.

August 17, 2018

Some random political thoughts.

Number one: John Brennen's security clearance. There seems to be a big ado as to why Trump pulled Brennen's security clearance. I think the more appropriate question would be why he still had a security clearance. For that matter, why does anyone that is no longer in government have a security clearance? Once someone leaves their government position, why do they need a security clearance? When I left the Navy, I did not keep my top-secret clearance. For that matter, when someone leaves a sensitive job in the secular world, they don't keep the keys to the building or the password to company accounts.

I have heard some say that these folks keep their security clearance in case they are needed to weigh in on something that happened while they were in their former positions. That might make some sense but why not revoke the clearance until such time as that need arises. Then it could be reinstated. As far as John Brennen is concerned, I am reasonably sure that President Trump will not be calling on him for advice.

Number two: Omarosa and Trump tapes. First, I would think there should be some legal question about someone taping things inside the White House. We are continually hearing about National Security, but it seems this low life woman cared so little about her position within our government that she taped almost everything that went on. Now, I will admit that nearly everything she has tapes of is meaningless, and if it were not for a Press hell-bent on finding dirt on Trump, they would not even get air-time. But there is one tape she claims to have where the President at some time in the past used the N-Word. Does anyone else find it strange she has played all the other tapes for a public hearing, and yet she has not played that one? I also find it odd how she praised Donald Trump right up until she got fired because she was a royal pain in the ass. Only after that did she accuse him of being a racist. And incidentally, she is black and yet pretended to be his best friend. If she really believed he was a racist, I doubt she would have wanted to be close to him.

Number Three: Andrew Cuomo's disgusting remark. In a jab at the President, Cuomo said, "we are not going to make America great again, it was never great." Now he has tried to walk that back but without much success. I believe he meant that remark precisely as he said it. In fact, it seems that the vast majority of Democrats believe that the United States is a terrible country to live in, and yet they want the citizens of that country to keep voting them into office. I would like one of them to explain to us what other nation is better. Sure we have had periods in our past where things were not perfect, but that does not negate all the other times when we were the greatest country on earth.

Number Four: There is a "blue wave" coming. It is far too early for anyone to be predicting what will happen in this fall's elections. As we saw in the election of 2016, polls are meaningless even a few days before the election took place. However, if history repeats itself, and it often does, then the Democrats should pick up some seats in the House this November. Usually in the first mid-term elections after a new president is inaugurated, the opposing party gains seats in Congress. I believe that is because the party gaining power becomes apathetic and fails to turn out to vote.

That could well happen this fall, as many people are just plain tired of hearing all the vitriol that is being spewed by both sides. But I will remind those Republicans that are feeling that way, that we have much to lose if the Democrats gain back both houses of Congress. In fact, we might even lose our President since many Democrats are calling for Trump's impeachment. I do not think we can depend on the fact that no President has even been removed from office through the impeachment process. Never before have we had a President that is so violently hated by the other side.

And even if Trump is not removed from office, most if not all, of what he has accomplished will be undone. The tax cuts that have created millions of jobs and brought more money into the average person's paychecks will be gone. If we have another opening on the Supreme Court, no conservative justice will have a chance of getting confirmed. The same thing goes for lesser courts that may have openings.

If these things are even slightly disturbing to you, you need to get out and vote Republican in November.

September 20, 2018

Was her memory suppressed, or was it planted?

First, let me tell you that I am not a psychiatrist or a psychologist. All I have is an opinion, and that is something that everyone has, and mine is no more important than anyone else. From my headline, I imagine that most of you folks can see which side I am going to come down on this subject.

I assume that most people know what subject I am referring to, but just in case let me clarify. To fill a vacant Supreme Court seat, our President, Donald Trump, nominated Brett Kavanaugh. While most honest people felt that Justice Kavanaugh is a highly respected jurist and immensely qualified for the position, Democrats announced they would not support his nomination even before he was named.

Justice Kavanaugh went through extensive questioning by both sides of the aisle, and it was becoming more and more likely that he would be confirmed to the position by a vote along strict party lines. No Democrat would vote for him until the Republicans had all supported him and then perhaps a few, fearing their election prospects would be hurt, would vote in his favor.

At some point in this process, last July, Democratic Senator, Dianne Feinstein, alleges that she got a letter from someone from Kavanaugh's youth, who claimed that Cavanaugh tried to sexually assault her. Feinstein did not bring this allegation to the attention of the rest of the Senate or did she mention it when she was questioning the Justice. Instead, she held onto this information until all other options had been exhausted. Then when the Senate was ready to hold the vote, she brought this information to light. Even then, she did not produce the letter or mention the name of the accuser.

When she was asked why she did not bring this to light earlier, she said it was to protect the identity of the accuser. Then miraculously, the name of the woman was printed in the Washington Post. The leaker was not named, but few people had the information so one must assume it was someone close to Feinstein that decided this woman's name was not to be protected.

Only then did a lawyer, claiming to represent, Christine Ford, make a statement that her client was willing to testify about the alleged attempted assault. In fact, she said that Ms. Ford was anxious to have her voice heard on the matter.

Then the Senate sent an invitation to the woman, asking her to testify on the matter. They further said that the testimony could be in a public session or in a private session, whichever the woman preferred.

Then another attorney, now claiming to represent, Ms. Ford, said that her client would not testify before the Senate until after an FBI investigation was conducted. Now, most people might find that to be strange since Kavanaugh had undergone no less than 6 FBI investigations, the last of which would have been this year when he was nominated to the Supreme Court. It also makes me wonder why this woman would want another investigation before getting her story out to the public. Is she hoping to get some information so that she can form her story to fit that narrative? Usually, an accuser does not need to have additional information provided before she testifies.

Of course, we know why the Democrats would be pushing for a lengthy investigation before a vote to confirm Kavanaugh. They are hoping against hope that they can push this matter off until after the midterm elections. While I think the chances of them retaking control of the Senate is slight, that is their best hope of stopping a conservative Justice from being confirmed, and any hope is better than no hope. Now, I am not saying that Ms. Ford is a knowing dupe of the Democrats. I do find the timing of this allegation highly suspect, however. Supposedly this alleged attack took place sometime in 1986, although Ms. Ford cannot tell us exactly when in 1986 or precisely where it allegedly took place. Her excuse for that is that she was so traumatized by the incident that her mind blocked it out. Only when she was undergoing therapy many years later did the memory come back.

Now while I will not say that she is lying about the incident. But I am highly skeptical of suppressed memories coming to light from therapy. And I am incredibly skeptical that something as minor as a drunken boy trying to remove a girl's clothing at a party would be so traumatizing that it would cause memory loss. I doubt that any of us could find a woman that at some point in her life did not have a male try to remove her clothing. And almost none of them would have found the incident to be so horrible that they would have suppressed the memory. Keep in mind, she was not raped, or did he succeed in removing her clothing. The worst thing she can say is that he got on top of her at some point, although she does not say how that happened or how she got away from him. Apparently, her memory was only restored to that point and no further.

We also do not know how the therapist managed to get this information out of her horrified mind. Was it from hypnosis, perhaps? If so, could a post-hypnotic suggestion be planted? Is there nobody else that thinks that if you wake up in a therapist's office, with memories, you never had before, that perhaps it was because the therapist put the idea in your head?

And when this memory came flooding back, how exactly did she remember that it was Kavanaugh and not some other classmate. How, long did it take for that piece of the puzzle to emerge? Did the therapist ask probing questions about who she might have known at that time? Did they view old high school yearbooks and talk about different people she might have had interactions with. Is it possible that she could have heard Kavanaugh's name on a news program and linked it with her youth? Did she read a newspaper account that might have mentioned his name or a magazine article about him? Or did she perhaps have a dream about him that was so vivid that it stuck in her mind?

Dreams can be so persuasive that they seem to become a reality when you think of them later. I remember when I was a young bot, assigned by my father to throw down hay for the cows that I had a dream about a giant in the haymow. That dream was so terrifying and so real that my father had to almost beat me to get me to go into that mow to throw down the hay. If I had undergone therapy at that point, I am sure I would have been quite sure that there was a real giant in that haymow.

I am sure that all of you have had dreams that seemed so real you remember them later as events that happened and not just dreams.

There are myriads of reasons why Ms. Ford believes what she is telling Feinstein is the truth. But, there are also many reasons why I think that she is mistaken. The first reason is that this is the only incident, anyone has come forward with, alleging such behavior from Kavanaugh. Men who are predisposed to be rapists do not try it once and then become model citizens. Typically, there would be a string of women who could come forward and say that he was a predator. Instead, there has been a steady stream of women who have come forward to testify that he was as near a perfect man as one could be.

Another odd thing is that Ms. Ford also remembers that there were two other people present, and yet both of those people deny being there or ever seeing Kavanaugh act in that way.

This is not a court of law, it is the court of public opinion. I have heard a lot of opinions that women do not lie about these types of things. I am sure there are thousands of men who have been falsely accused and later exonerated that would disagree with that idea. My opinion is that the preponderance of evidence says that Ms. Ford is mistaken. I have no reason to believe that she is lying. Perhaps she does have some ax to grind with the Justice. But that has not been brought to light.

But I also have no reason to believe that Judge Kavanaugh is lying either. What little evidence we have has been provided by people who have known him for years. Other than Ms. Ford, not one of them has said anything derogatory about the man. Oh, the Democrats have tried to sully his character, for the most part in a failing effort. But, that is to be expected. The Democrats hate anything remotely associated with our President. They are so vindictive that they destroyed a good and honorable man, Ronny Jackson when he was put forward to head the Veteran's Administration. They would do anything to derail the Trump train. And I would not put it past Feinstein or any other Dem, to fabricate a story to stop Kavanaugh's nomination. I believe that Feinstein should be compelled to produce the email with all the pertinent information still in tack so that we could see if such an email actually existed and if so where it came from.

The sad part of this and countless other stories is that someone can point an accusing finger at anyone else and never be held accountable when they are proved to be wrong. Because of some archaic law that says that unless you can prove they have malice, people in the public eye cannot sue and win defamation lawsuits. Instead of the accuser having to prove their allegations, it is now up to the accused to prove he or she is innocent. And that is the standard that the Democrats want to apply to Kavanaugh. Although there is not one shred of evidence other than this woman's cloudy recollections that may or may not have been put into her mind in therapy, the Democrats want us to take her word and ignore all the positive things that have been said about him and ignore his years of public service as well.

It is time to end this farce and confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

September 29, 2018

I don't remember, but I am 100% sure.

The reader will have to excuse me for my lack of details in this article. You see the event that I am about to relate was so traumatizing that my mind completely blocked it out. I might never have remembered it if it wasn't for seeing my assailants on television all accusing another man of a crime that I am positive he did not commit.

I am not sure where it happened. I am even less sure of when it happened. It might have been sometime in the mid-eighties or early nineties. It is possible it could have been sometime after the turn of the century. But that is not the important thing. What is important was that this event occurred and that it was so terrible that it ruined my entire life.

So now that you know why I cannot remember the exact details, and I am sure you sympathize if not empathize with me, you will give full credit to my "truth." So here is the account. I hope that your minds can handle it better than mine did.

I don't recall if it was in a bar, it is possible it happened on a street. I don't know what city it was in, it could have been a village or small town. I could have been driving a car, and the woman might have flagged me down. Those details are unimportant in any regard. What is important is who was involved and what they did to me.

The main assailant was a woman. I cannot recall her exact name, but I think it had something to do with automobiles. She was accompanied by a woman whose name reminded me of a crystal beer glass and a man whose name sounded like someone that kept track of gambling debts. I believe both of those people now steal money from the citizens of the United States by claiming to be elected officials.

In any event, these three approached me and demanded that I pay money to have sex with the first woman. I am not sure exactly how much money they wanted, I believe one of them said two bits, but it might have been five dollars. I am sure that they would not have asked for more money than that considering who it was that was offering the sex act. When I said that I was not interested in exchanging money for some sexual act, the woman whose name sounds like a crystal beer glass told me that if I didn't part with my money that she would have the man whose name sounds like someone who keeps track of gambling debts beat me, sodomize me and take the money anyway.

Now I am sure that someone could investigate this event and find out that I am telling my "truth." In any event, the woman that was offering sexual favors for money should not be allowed to teach our children or anyone else for that matter. And her strong arm partners should not be allowed to continue to make money, under the false pretenses of pretending to serve the people of the United States.

And although I would not want anyone to accuse me of having ulterior motives in bringing these charges at this late date, I would not mind if someone would start a gofundme page, where I might be compensated for my pain and suffering even if the pain and suffering are only in my mind. I believe a half million dollars would do just fine.

Thank you for listening to my "truth."

October 3, 2018

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned

The Democrats were out of options in stopping the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The Republicans had the majority and the votes, and it was only a matter of time before he was confirmed and seated on the highest court in the land.

But then miraculously, Dianne Feinstein got a letter detailing a woman's claim that Kavanaugh had tried to sexually assault her when she was in high school over 30 years prior. The woman asked that Feinstein not release her name and Feinstein claims that she followed that request. She has no idea how the New York Times got hold of that letter. I imagine she has some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you as well.

So the gist of Ford's claim is that although she cannot remember where the party was, how she got to the party or how she got home from the party, she is positive that a drunken Kavanaugh tried to sexually assault her, and though he was not successful in his efforts it so scarred her mind that she blacked the episode out of her memory for years, telling nobody that it had happened.

I am sure that many people find that story completely unbelievable, but the Democrats say that we have to believe the accuser over the accused since abused women always tell the truth. Now that is pure nonsense, but if you fail to believe this woman, you also have to wonder what her motive might be for lying about this alleged incident.

So try this scenario on for size. Imagine that there is a young girl that has a schoolgirl crush on an upperclassman. This boy is into sports and is very popular. He has his choice of any girl he wants and is friends with a great many boys and girls. Also, imagine that the girl in question is extremely homely. If you have seen her yearbook photos, you don't have to imagine that. And so Kavanaugh totally ignores all her efforts to attract his attention.

But Ford does not give up easily. She fantasizes about him, and she dreams about him. She is not accepted by the crowd that Kavanaugh hangs with, but she learns as much as she can about them hoping to find some way to get close to him. But nothing she tries works. She is still ignored by the object of her secret affection. As the years go by, her crush turns to hatred. And the more time that passes, her hatred burns hotter. She swears that she will get even with this man that has spurned her affection.

Perhaps she now imagines that Kavanaugh was in fact attracted to her, so much so in fact that he wanted her so badly that at an imaginary party they were both attending he tried to rape her. Now that thought grows in her mind to replace the more horrible idea that Kavanaugh couldn't stand to be with her.

This thought grows and grows until she seeks therapy to be able to handle them. They are so burned into her mind that she actually believes her own lie. And finally, she can tell this therapist about this alleged incident. Her only problem is that the only part of her story that she dwelled on enough to be convincing about is that it was Kavanaugh that tried to assault her.

She did not think through the story enough to plant a date, time, location, how she got to the party, or how she got home. If you listened to the testimony, she gave, it should have brought up questions about her truthfulness. She said that she rushed out of the house, not going into any other room. Well, if that is the case, how did she contact someone to pick her up and take her home? There were no cell phones that an ordinary person would have had access to. So how did she call for a ride?

In any effort to try and support her claim, she mentioned some of the people that would have been in Kavanaugh's circle of friends, saying they were there at the time. The problem is they disavow any knowledge of the party or the alleged assault. Even her own friend that she said knew about the incident, says she knows nothing about it.

And now another of her friends has come forward to say that Ford repeatedly lied during her Senate testimony. Ford told Senators that she had to drive across the country because she was afraid to fly, but her friend says that is a blatant lie. She flies all the time. Ford also said that she was terrified to be in any room with only one door, but this same friend says they are together in rooms with only one door all the time.

When this story first broke, I wrote an article in which I wanted to believe that Ford actually believed what she was saying. However, now that I have heard her lie about one thing after another, I have to recant my belief in her innocence. I now believe that she hates Kavanaugh for ignoring her all those years ago and will now do everything she can to destroy Kavanaugh's life.

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

October 9, 2018

What is more important to you come election day?

We are little over a year and a half into the presidency of Donald Trump. During that short period, I believe that he has accomplished more good for the United States than most presidents accomplish in a full two terms. Indeed, he has accomplished far more than his predecessor did in his eight years in the highest office of the land.

So one would assume that the media would be singing his praises, but that is not the case. If you followed the main news stories from CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, or most any other news outlet, what you have heard the most about is Russian meddling in our elections. One would have to assume, therefore, that the topic is of utmost interest to the American people. But is that really true? For myself, I find it to be of no interest what-so-ever. Ask yourself, whether that topic is true or false does it affect your life in any way. My answer would be absolutely not. There is no evidence that even one vote was changed by this so-called meddling. So the election of Donald Trump was in no way affected by Russia. My life was not changed one iota by what Russia did or did not do before the election of 2016.

On the other hand, what has happened since January of 2017 has made a profound difference in my life. One of the main worries that I had, if Hillary Clinton was elected, was that the Supreme Court would bend sharply to the left. That would mean that my right to own and bear arms would probably be limited if not taken away altogether. It would also suggest that my right to practice my religion would be sharply curtailed in favor of those who think that religion should not be a part of our way of life. Homosexuality and abortion would win out over those of us that believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and those of us who believe that life begins at conception. But Trump kept his promise by appointing Neil Gorsuch maintaining the balance of the court where it has been for many years. Hopefully he will be able to appoint one or two more conservatives during his presidency and swing the court further to the conservative point of view.

Despite Nancy Pelosi's statements that the tax cuts that were put forward by the President and enacted by Congress were crumbs, we have seen the economy begin to boom because of them. The lower corporate rate has created jobs as companies get to use more of the available money to expand their operations and hire new workers. The extra thousand dollars or so that the average person has seen in their paychecks has made it possible for them to buy more goods and services, which in turn creates even more jobs. Trump promised when he was running that he would rescind two regulations for each new one that was put into action, but he has gone well beyond that.

Some of those regulations were job killers. Because of removing regulations on coal and other fossil fuels, mines have reopened, and miners are going back to work. Because more areas were opened up to drilling and fracking, we are on our way to energy independence and soon may surpass all other countries in the exporting of oil and natural gas. Instead of buying oil from other countries, which puts us into a trade deficit, we will now be able to export oil and gas to give us a trade surplus.

The first Tuesday in November is rapidly approaching and we the people have some severe choices to make. The first decision is, will you take the time and effort to go to the polls and exercise your right to vote. Is it worth perhaps a half-hour and some standing in a line to make sure that your voice is heard? Never before in our history has a midterm election been so profoundly crucial in where our country is going. Who you vote for in that ballot box decides what kind of country and economy you want.

If you believe, like Nancy Pelosi that the thousand or two thousand dollars you received in the form of tax cuts are crumbs and are willing to return that money to the federal government then you should vote for a Democrat. If you believe that we have too many jobs in this country, then you should vote for a Democrat. If you think that we should have fewer manufacturing jobs in this country, you should vote for a Democrat. If you believe that competition for qualified workers, that lead to higher wages for workers is a bad thing you should vote for a Democrat.

The Democrats have already announced that if they retake the House and Senate, they will introduce legislation to rescind the Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts reversing the effects that the bill has had on the economy. If you want to see the best economy I have seen in my long life is a bad thing, you should vote for a Democrat. If you want to see more people out of work and on welfare and food stamps, you should vote for a Democrat.

If however, you like the idea of having more jobs than people to fill them, creating competition for your labor, you should vote for a Republican. A sage man once said, "It is the economy, stupid." No reasonable person could argue that our present economy is not far better than it has been in decades. So all rational people should cast their votes to keep it humming. That would be a vote to keep a Republican majority in both houses.

Let's move on to another area where your vote will decide the direction of our country. If you believe that anyone should be allowed to enter our country without vetting, including terrorists, criminals, drug dealers, and mules and violent gang members, then you should vote for a Democrat. If however, you believe that people entering our country should come in the right way, you should vote for a Republican. If you believe that those that have already entered our country illegally should be held to the same standards as our own citizens, you should vote for a Republican. But, if you think that these border jumping criminals should be given preferential treatment, being protected by sanctuary cities and states, you should vote for a Democrat.

If you like the idea of gridlock, where nothing gets accomplished, you should vote for a Democrat. One of the things that Trump ran on was to repeal and replace Obamacare. He had it completed until John McCain came out of the woodwork and voted the deciding vote against the replacement. But keep in mind, McCain should never have been the deciding vote. At least a few Democrats should have seen the value in getting rid of the job-killing Obamacare. And I am sure that they did, but they did not dare to buck the Democratic leadership. So if you wish to continue with this type of gridlock, you are a genuine Democrat voter. But if you want to get things done. If you want the tax cuts for ordinary people, to be made permanent, you must vote for a Republican.

Let's consider treaties. We now have a new, improved version of the North American Free Trade Agreement. But it cannot be completed without being confirmed by Congress. If the Democrats are in power, no matter how good this agreement is or how much good it will do for the farmers and factory workers of our country, the Democrats will block it. That is a fact because the Democrats do not care about what is good for the United States. They only care about wresting power from the people and keeping it for themselves. And what will happen if North Korea finally comes to the table with an agreement to denuclearize and end the war that has been put on hold for over 60 years? If the Democrats are in control of Congress, they will not agree to anything no matter how much good it does for the Korean peninsula or our own country. They would rather see Korea keep their nuclear weapons than to appear to give any credit to President Trump.

One of the main reasons that people gave for voting for Donald Trump was the Supreme Court. Many wanted to make sure that conservative judges would be appointed to the highest court in the land. And now we have two excellent people that have filled the vacancies of Scalia and Kennedy. But the battle is not over. We have just gone through one of the most disgusting confirmation processes that I have ever seen. One would think that the Democrats would be ashamed of themselves for trying to destroy a good man's name and reputation, but they are doubling down. They say that if they retake the House that they will begin impeachment proceedings against Justice Kavanaugh. We cannot let that happen. The best way to stop it is to keep the majority in the House of Representatives. We also need to expand the majority in the Senate so that when the next opening occurs, hopefully, Ruth Bader Ginsberg will resign, we can fill that seat with a little less drama than just happened.

So each of us has to ask ourselves, what is important to my family and me. Do you want to continue the most exceptional economy that the United States has ever seen, or would you instead vote for a Democrat? The choice is yours. Consider the alternatives before you pull the lever.

October 11, 2018

Are you better off today than you were two years ago?

Most honest people would agree that they are indeed better off today than when Donald Trump took office. But nobody has ever accused a Democrat of being honest. They believe the old adage that if you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, somebody is bound to believe you.

Nancy Pelosi has never recanted her statement that what the typical person received from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act were crumbs. And just this morning I heard a Democrat shill, say that the tax cuts were only good for the upper 1% of the population. The sad part was that the Fox News reporter failed to even try to correct that outright lie.

The latest unemployment number stands at 3.7%, which is the lowest it has been since 1969. Part of that is because minority unemployment, including black and Hispanic people, is the lowest it has been in the history of our country. There are more jobs today than there are people out of work to fill those jobs.

Amazon just raised it's minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour up from $11.40. They did not do that out of the kindness of their hearts. They felt they had to raise the pay rate to attract qualified people to their company. More than likely other companies will have to raise their minimum wage to be able to compete.

We have fewer people on welfare and food stamps than we have had in decades. That did not happen just because poor people decided to quit eating. That number happened because more people were able to find meaningful employment.

Manufacturing jobs that Obama said would never come back to the United States are returning to our country in droves. Those are high paying jobs that make all other industries need to reevaluate their pay structures to compete. Instead of government mandating a rise in the minimum wage, the marketplace is now working as it is intended to work.

You have the opportunity on November 6th to either keep this booming economy going or to vote for Democrats that will undo all the good Donald Trump has done. I hope that when you go into that booth, that you ask yourself, am I better off than I was two years ago. If your answer is yes do not vote for a Democrat.

If the Democrats win back the house, they have promised to not only try and impeach the President, but some have even suggested impeaching the Vice President as well. We cannot allow them to overturn the results of a lawful election. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for tyranny.

November 2, 2018

How much do you love Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer?

As the election day draws near the Democrats, want you to forget the economy. They claim that the tax cuts passed by the Republicans, with little or no help from the Democrats only benefitted the top one percent of people in the country. Most realistic estimates say that the average American family got about 2,000 dollars in tax relief from the bill. Of course, Nancy Pelosi calls that crumbs. But I ask you if you dropped $2,000 would you just keep walking or would you bend over to pick it up?

But even if you don't think that $2,000 is a significant sum to you, consider what else the tax act has done for the economy. Just today, another quarter of a million jobs were reportedly created. The unemployment rate of 3.7% is the lowest it has been in decades. African American unemployment is the lowest in our countries history. Hispanic unemployment is the lowest it has been in our countries history. We now have 7 million open jobs, which are more than we have unemployed to fill them.

Fewer and fewer people are working part-time jobs as more and more companies are extending hours for their employees. Wages are rising. In fact today, Amazon raised its minimum wage to $15 per hour. Earlier Walmart, the largest employer in the United States, also raised its minimum wage and fast-food restaurants are following suit. As more and more companies raise their rate of pay, others will have to follow suit to compete for a shrinking labor pool.

All of these things are good for the everyday person, although perhaps the 1% will also benefit. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, many of the 1% are also job creators.

I know that the Democrats would rather concentrate on health care as polls show that is the number one issue with many people. And if they had a viable option, I might give them some credit. But, unfortunately, they have nothing to offer that is better than what you now have. They throw out the phrase "Medicare for all," but that is an oxymoron.

The lowest estimate of the cost for adding all American's to the Medicare roles would be 30 trillion dollars. Let that number sink in. Our National debt is now about 21 trillion dollars, and just 10 years ago, it was about 10 trillion dollars. Now the Democrats want to more than double the money we owe which would, in fact, bankrupt the country and Medicare would cease to exist. So Medicare for all is really Medicare for none.

When you go into that voting booth, whether you do so early or wait until next Tuesday, ask yourself, Is the pipe dream that Nance and Chuck are trying to feed you worth losing the reality of the best economy I have seen in my long lifetime. Do you love Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer more than you love our country? Hopefully, the answer will be no and you will vote to keep our Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.

November 4, 2018

Is Medicare for all a viable option?

According to many pollsters, the most important thing for many people when they go to vote is healthcare. The Democrats are attempting to cash in on that concern by touting what they call Medicare for All. Most conservative estimates say that would raise the National Debt by over 30 Trillion dollars, but that doesn't seem to be relevant to the Democrats or their supporters.

According to two different sources in 2012 and 2013, the unfunded liability of our present Medicare system is between 32 trillion and 34 trillion dollars. So the pipedream of Medicare for all would roughly double the unfunded liability of the program. The problem is that the number of 62 or 64 trillion dollars is beyond almost anyone's contemplation. It is so vast that nobody could even compare it to anything that we are familiar with, so it does not have the impact that it should have.

So let's look at it from a position that we might be able to understand. The Democrats make it sound like Medicare for all would be free to all Americans. They do that because everyone likes free stuff. I recall back in 2012 when a woman was on Television from Cleveland, Ohio, and was over the moon because she had received a free Obama-phone.

But Medicare is not now nor will it ever be a free health insurance system, and under Medicare, for all, it will get even more expensive. Right now, the average senior on Medicare pays a monthly premium of about 134 dollars. Since Medicare only pays 80% of health care bills, most seniors also carry some type of supplemental insurance. A Medicare supplement plan can cost upwards of another $200 per month to help pay for what Medicare does not. And Medicare supplement plans do not pay for prescription drugs. Fortunately, now we have what is called Medicare Advantage Plans. These plans have much lower monthly premiums, and most do pay something towards prescription drugs.

But under Medicare for all, they are going to take away Medicare Advantage plans to help make the cost seem lower. So if you are now on a Medicare Advantage Plan or you have an older relative that is now enjoying the benefits of a Medicare Advantage Plan, they will lose that benefit. Imagine what that would do to most older Americans. Almost every senior citizen is on some type of prescription medication. Medication to bring down blood pressure, medicines to lower cholesterol, medication for diabetes, medication for severe pain, medication for arthritis, medication for prostate problems, and the list goes on and on. These medications are significantly reduced in price to your insurance company, and your co-pay for these drugs are a fraction of what you would pay if not for the insurance.

So to help pay for Medicare for all they are secretly going to take away one of the main benefits that senior citizens now enjoy. So Medicare for all would make Medicare for those that currently have it much more expensive and at a time when these folks are on a fixed low income. Many of them would not be able to afford their medications and might die because of that.

So to offer benefits for younger Americans, you would have to take away benefits for older Americans, the very ones that use the most medical services.

Remember when the Democrats were airing ads showing the Republican Speaker of the House throwing granny off the cliff. Well, that is precisely what the Democrats would be doing if they could gain control of Congress and manage to pass Medicare for all.

There is no doubt that something has to be done with our health care system. Unlike many of you, I do not blame the insurance companies for the problem. It is far more complicated than just the insurance industry. For one thing, we should be looking at the ambulance chasers and malpractice lawsuits. Lowering the cost of liability insurance that doctors and hospitals are forced to purchase to keep themselves out of bankruptcy from unscrupulous lawyers who look for an easy payday by suing over every hangnail that goes untreated.

Trump's idea of making drug companies offer their products to Americans at the same price they sell them to foreigners is also a good step in lower our health care costs.

The Republicans have offered one solution to health insurance premiums of allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines where they can be better price options. That solution has been struck down by Democrats every time it is suggested to be brought for a vote.

I agree that health care is an important aspect when you are deciding who to vote for. But I implore you not to throw away the best economy of my life to vote in a Democrat with a pipedream called Medicare for all.

January 8, 2019

New Kodi addons for buffering and no streams available.

If you are a frequent user of Kodi, you probably are continually looking for new addons that might work better than the ones you presently have. Like you, I check the web weekly and sometimes daily to see if someone has come out with a new addon where I might be able to watch some of the tv shows that have no streams, or I can watch a movie without always waiting for it to buffer.

I have also done searches for no streams available and for stop buffering on Kodi but if almost no success, until now that is. Since the Ares wizard stopped working (you may think it still works for maintenance, but it does not), I have been unable to find something that will clear all cache, files, and thumbnails. But now, thanks to Husham, I have found the EZ Maintenance tool that works perfectly for that purpose and also to see the proper amount of buffer so that movies play well.

If you have a new Kodi installation without any addons you must go to the cogwheel at the top of the first page, go to system settings, go all the way to the bottom to where it says standard, and click on it until it changes to expert. Then go back to where it says addons, move your cursor to the right, and click on unknown sources. It will then ask if you are sure and click, yes. Now you will be able to download addons to your Kodi.

Now go back one screen and click on File manager. Click on Add source. Double click on the blank line and put in the URL.

Here is the URL to get the EZ maintenance tool: http://REPO.HUSHAM.COM  Notice that most of it is in capital letters and you must enter it into file manager that was. Once you have entered that you must give it a name. The name is not essential but I named mine EZ.

Now click back two screens and go to addons and click there. Now go back to the top to the open box and click on that. You will then see a list.

My add-ons

Recently updated

Install from repository

Install from zip file

Search

Click on install from zip file, find the name of the addon you entered above, in my case, it was EZ and click on it. You will now see two items, you want the one at the bottom that says repository.husham.com-1.1.0003, click on that and then click on install.

Wait until you see the notification come in the upper right corner that the Husham repository is installed. Now go to Install from repository, find Husham.com Repo, and click on it. Another list appears, click on Program addons. Another menu will appear, click on EZ Maintenance. On that screen go all the way to the right on the bottom row and click on install and wait for the notification that the addon is installed. Click the back button until you are at the screen with the list that starts with Video addons. Go down to program addons click on it and when the next screen opens click on EZ Maintenance.

There are several options. The first is Fresh Start (do not click on that unless you want to start all over with a fresh Kodi with nothing in it. The next is My Wizard. I would not mess with that as well. The next is Backup/Restore. Do not click on that as it does basically the same thing that Fresh Start does.

Now you come to MAINTENANCE. When you click on that, it will give you the option to Clear Cache, Clear Packages, and Clear Thumbnails. I clear all three regularly to free up memory. There is nothing in any of those files that you need to retain. Now go back one screen and click on ADVANCED SETTINGS (BUFFER SIZE). You will see a box with EZ Maintenance+ at the top. The first item below that is FREE MEMORY and then a number with MB behind it. I would write that down as you may want to use it to determine the number that you might want to use instead of using Optimal. If you notice the next line, it says that based on your free Memory, your optimal buffer size is: a number followed by MB. And then it says to choose an option below. The number for optimal is much smaller than the number you should use. In my case, my free memory is 492 MB, and my optimal buffer says 164 MB. The maximum buffer size is actually 492 X .90 or 442 MB. So I want to use the maximum, not the optimal. So I want to select Input a Value instead of use optimal. But there is a problem. You have to use some basic math computing to come up with the number to input. To do that you need to multiply your maximum buffer size that you got from doing the 90% computation by 1024 and then multiply that number again by 1024 to come up with the number you need to input when you click on input value. In my case that would be 442 X 1024 = 452608 X 1024 = 463470582, There will already be a number on the line so you must use the erase button to wipe that out. Now enter the number you came up with and then click ok. You will get a message telling you that you need to restart Kodi. Do that and your buffer size will be set.

That should eliminate most of your buffering problems.

Now to help with no streams available. The first thing to try is to open any of your video addons, find tools, and then find clear cache. Click on that and when asked if you are sure, click yes. Now find clear providers, click on that and then click yes. That gives you a fresh list of providers to choose from.

But there is still one more thing that you need to do to make sure that the vast majority of links you have to choose from will actually work for you. That is to update your URL Resolver to the newest version. That can be found in the One Nation Portal.. To find that you need to download another addon. Go to file manager, click on add source, double click on the blank line and enter this URL: http://onenation.info/repo&nbsp; Now give it a name, I called mine onenation. Then click, ok. Now go back two screens, click on addons, then go back to the top of the screen and click on the open box. Click on install from zip file, select whatever you named yours, and click on that. The only item to select from is repository.onenation-1.0.5.zip. Click on that and wait for the notification that the one name repository has been installed. When you see the notification click on install from repository, find the onenation repo, and click on that. It will give you four options, select One Nation Portal, click and then click install. Once you have gotten the notification that it is installed. Now click back until you come to the home screen go to the cogwheel at the top and click on it. Now select system settings, go down to addons, click there, go one screen to the right, and select manage dependencies. Near the bottom of the list, it gives you is URL resolver. Click on that and click update and select OneNation Version 5.0/30.

Now you have the latest version of URL resolver, and most of the links that you get with your video addons should work.

If you found this helpful or you have questions or concerns, please leave me a comment.

January 28, 2019

Evil is alive and well in New York State

Honestly, I did not think that the Democrats that control the government of almost every facet of New York State could become any more depraved than they have been, but they managed to surprise me once again.

According to the Washington Times, Governor Andrew Cuomo just signed a bill allowing a woman to abort a baby for any reason right up until what would be that child's birth date. Any sane person should be horrified by that thought, but apparently, the majority of voters in the State of New York find such an idea to be acceptable, or they would not continue to vote in these evil people.

However, if you are one of the millions of people that believe that Andrew Cuomo is not an evil man, then why stop at aborting full-term babies. Why not try the child out for a year or so and see if he or she is a good fit for your family. If the child cries too much or fusses too much or interrupts your sleep more than what is acceptable, why not kill them at that point?

Or better still maybe you would like to keep the child around during the cuddly stage, maybe up to five or six years old and then if they become too much of a hassle, you could do away with them then. Oh, wait, most of the time, parents can handle a small child, but it is when they begin to turn into unruly teenagers that they are more than what is reasonable to deal with. Surely if you can murder a baby that is about to be born, you should be able to slaughter that teenage monster.

Have we really become so depraved as a country that we are willing to stand by and watch the murder of millions of nearly born babies. When you go into the voting booth for the next general election, take a picture of an aborted baby with you. On that picture, make sure you write the words, a Democrat allowed this to happen. If you are slightly sick to your stomach at that point, mark your ballot for the Republican. Otherwise, you are an accessory to murder.

Feb 13, 2019

What Part of the Green New Deal could you vote for?

The vast majority of Democrats have signed on, at least in spirit, to The Green New Deal that was put forward by Ocasio Cortez recently. The question is how many of them will actually vote for it if it ever comes up in the House of Representatives or in the United States Senate?

The bigger question is, will the voters in this country support anyone that actually votes for such a bill? I would like to believe that the answer to that question is zero, but unfortunately, I have no such faith in the American electorate.

So let's take a look at what this proposed bill is designed to do. It's the basic premise as I understand it is to significantly reduce carbon emissions in the United States. Of course, since it is only aimed at our country, the rest of the world would be free to pollute all they wanted. But I guess we have to start someplace.

To achieve that lofty goal, this idea (not yet a bill) would ban the use of 99% of all automobiles presently on the road within the next ten years. It would also ban the use of most airplanes, including all passenger airplanes within the next ten years. To make that last ban viable would require the building of an extensive high-speed rail system. If you believe that is a reasonable alternative to air travel, you might realize that every place that has tried high-speed rail service has found that it is many times more expensive than was initially proposed. Even the ludicrous Governor of California just abandoned his hopes for the completion of their high-speed rail system between Los Angeles and San Francisco citing the enormous cost of the project. Now imagine what the cost would be, and the logistical problems would be if every city in California were to be linked to the system. Also, consider how much private land would have to be taken from its owners by eminent domain to complete such a project.

And that is just in one state, imagine if every city with an airport in the United States had to be linked together with high-speed rail. The mere idea is not just unreasonable, it is ludicrous. Maybe it could be accomplished in a thousand years but not in ten.

Banning of all automobiles except fully electric cars is almost as insane. Just the massive outlay of money that it would take to replace all the gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles would be astronomical. Sure the top 1% which the left is continually vilifying might be able to afford to convert their vehicles to electric, but the cost would be prohibitive for the elderly and poor population that the left likes to pretend to protect.

But let's leave that for now and look at other parts of this pie in the sky proposal. It also asks that all use of oil, natural gas, and nuclear power be done away with within the ten years. One might wonder why they specifically want to outlaw nuclear power since it is one of the cleanest ways to produce power. And while they mention doing away with nuclear, there is no mention of doing away with coal. Amazing when you stop and think about it. I am sure that was just an oversight.

Now if you think that you can afford to convert or buy a new automobile that is 100% electric, can you also afford to replace your gas furnace, your gas hot water tank, your gas cooking stove, your gasoline-powered lawnmower, weed eater and leaf blower? And of course, you would no longer have an alternate generator in case the electric power that keeps you warm or cool and allows you to cook your meals fails as we all know happens from time to time.

And don't forget that the unemployment rate will skyrocket when all those working in the petroleum industry no longer have jobs, not to mention those that work in related industries.

It is already estimated that the unemployment rate will climb to around 20% by the year 2030 because of advances in technology. We see much of that when we go to the grocery store and see only one or two lanes open for those that refuse to use automated cashiers. How high will the unemployment rate be if The Green New Deal becomes a reality?

And they don't stop there. It seems they also take umbrage with cows and the fact that they fart methane gas. So to put a stop to that pollution, they would mandate that all cows be slaughtered. But of course, they wouldn't stop there, pigs, horses, bison, elephants, deer, moose, caribou, and any other large animal would have to be killed to stop their polluting the planet.

I do hope that you are willing to become a vegan for there will be no meat to eat unless of course, you become a cannibal. And that might not even be a viable alternative since they are suggesting killing not only babies but anyone that is over the age of eighty years old. And eventually, they would get around to culling the rest of the populations as well, in their attempt to save the planet from greenhouse gases.

Be honest, do these ideas make sense to you. Pick even one of them and think about it seriously, can you honestly support such a thing? Now put all of these ideas into one bill and ask yourself how insane would a congressional delegate or Senator have to be to vote for the bill? But then again look at the morons that we have voted into public office. Is the idea so farfetched?

Feb 19, 2019

Will Raising Taxes on the Rich Solve Our Problems?

We are led to believe by the Democrats that all our money woes in the United States are because the ultra-rich do not pay their fair share of taxes. That has been the battle cry of almost every Democratic candidate for office in the past 20 or so years.

One such candidate is Ocasio Cortez (better known as OAC) who recently said that she believed the top income tax rate should be around 90% and after you reached 2 million dollars in income you should pay at least 70% in income tax. What these folks fail to divulge to you is that the top 1% of income earners actually pay almost 50% of the income taxes in our country. The top 20% of income earners pay over 86% of all income taxes collected. The bottom 40% of wage earners not only pay nothing in income taxes, but they get back over 600 dollars per person more than they paid in.

But wait a minute, someone is bound to interject, "What about Amazon who made millions last year and paid zero dollars in income taxes"? Yes, I too, have seen those claims in some internet articles. If they are correct, then something is drastically wrong with our tax code. You notice I said TAX CODE, not the tax rate. If a company or corporation makes billions of dollars and pays no income tax, raising the tax rate is not going to solve the problem. If the top rate is 35% and they pay no income tax, they will still pay no income tax if the top rate is 100%.

And of course, these articles do not tell us how much Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, pays in individual taxes. I believe this is called selective reporting.

I believe that our problem is not that rich people pay too little tax, the problem is our government spends too much money. And that problem is not going to be solved by allowing Socialists to take over our government.

It is impossible to give away more and more dollars to more and more people and not increase our budget deficit. Here are just a few ideas proffered by Democratic candidates. Medicare for All. Free College Tuition for All. Universal Income for All. Free Day Care for Working Families.

In addition to their give-away programs, they have developed ideas that would kill many of the jobs that now pay a large portion of our income taxes. "The Green New Deal" that has been advocated by every major Democratic candidate for President would effectively kill the petroleum industry, the nuclear power industry, much of the automotive industry, the airlines, maritime industry, and take away jobs from all companies that presently support those industries.

Of course, that "Pie in the Sky" proposal would also create jobs. According to OAC, every building in the United States would have to be gutted and retrofitted with environmentally friendly materials within ten years. It was reported on Fox News that the cost of just replacing the light bulbs in most New York City apartments would be over $2,000. Imagine how much it would cost to replace all the appliances that use natural gas or use more electricity than what someone would allocate for such an appliance. And on top of that most of the insulation would have to be replaced as well. Since few people could afford to do all these things on their own dime, it is assumed that the Federal and State government would have to foot the bill, negating any taxes that might be collected from these construction companies.

But if the rich would only pay their fair share, there would be plenty of money for all these wonderful programs, the Democrats cry! The rich do pay more than their fair share, but no matter how much anyone pays into the Government coffers, some politicians will find ways to spend more than is taken in.

I am reminded of a cartoon that I saw many years ago. A woman was standing up in front of a blackboard with a stick pointing at the board. She says, "If your husband makes $5,000 per year, you spend $6,000 if he makes $10,000 per year, you spend $12,000. That way, he will constantly strive to improve himself." I guess that is the politician's view of economics. Spend more than you take in every year, and it will justify taxing your constituents more.

Someone asked today on Facebook, "What is the difference between a socialist and a democratic socialist"? My answer to that question was, "A democratic socialist cuts their own throat with their vote."

It seems that the Democrats are trying to outdo each other with who can give away more free stuff. I find It difficult to believe that even the old Socialist (pretending to be a Democrat) Bernie Sanders thinks that any of this is reasonable or even possible, but the sad part is that many of our young people do believe that there is such a thing as a "free lunch", or in this case a "free life". Why bother to work if the Government is going to give you all the things you have been working for?

I have very little faith in the American electorate. I do, however, pray that in the upcoming elections of 2020 they remember that nothing in this life is free other than the air you breathe and if the Democrats have their way they will tax that as well.

April 26, 2019

When Will The Witchhunt End

On May 17, 2017, Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 Presidential election. The FBI had actually been conducting an investigation since the middle of the summer of 2016.  
Now almost three years later, over 25 million dollars spent (although some estimates say that figure should be over 40 million dollars) over 500 witnesses interviewed, multiple Grand Juries empaneled, and 3 dozen indictments issued (most of which were to Russian citizens that he knew would never be brought into an American court) Mueller has come to the conclusion that there was no collusion. In fact, his report states that there is no evidence that any American citizen colluded with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.  
One, therefore, would think that would be the end of the matter. But, not so fast say the Democrats. Just because Mueller couldn't find the evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And even if Trump or his campaign did not actually collude with the Russians, they certainly showed interest in doing so. Democrats hang their hats on one statement that Donald Trump made during one of the Presidential debates where, tongue in cheek, he stated that perhaps the Russians could find the 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton deleted.  
Now, anyone with a half of a brain in their head would have taken that statement as a joke, intended to bait Hillary but not so say the Democrats. They believe that Trump was in actuality, asking for the Russians to hack Hillary's server. Of course, that would be impossible since Hillary had already wiped her server clean with what is called Bleachbit. She had also taken hammers to all of the cell phones that had been used during her time as Secretary of State. So it would not have been possible for the Russians to hack into Hillary's server or her cell phones for that matter.  
These facts are plain enough for even the densest politician to understand, but Democrats refuse to admit the truth. They are calling for Mueller to testify in front of Congress about what he may have left out of the 400-page report. They also seem to be hung up on the 3% of the report that was redacted. They want the Attorney General to release the full report, although he would have to violate several laws to do that.  
But some Democrats say that it doesn't matter if Trump did not collude with the Russians, he certainly obstructed justice and therefore should be impeached.  
But for me, therein lies the rub. Since Mueller found that no crime had been committed, it seems reasonable that no obstruction of justice could take place. Now, I have heard several Democrat pundits say that it not true. They believe that a crime does not have to have been committed for someone to obstruct justice.  
Let's go down that rabbit hole for a minute. How, did Trump obstruct the investigation? Oh, he fired James Comey, that has to be obstruction. Forget for a moment, that a President can fire anyone that works for him, for any reason, or no reason, did the firing of Comey in any way end the investigation? No, if anything, it increased the scope of the investigation.

Did the President fire anyone on the Special Counsel's payroll? Did the President fire the Special Counsel. The answer to both of those questions is a resounding NO!

Oh, it is true that the President was extremely frustrated by the investigation but not because he was guilty of anything. The Democrats and their henchmen, the news media used the investigation to detract from all of the good things that Donald Trump was trying to accomplish. In less than two years, this President had done things that his predecessor had said was impossible. He had created millions of jobs, including hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs. Remember President Obama's words, it would take a magic wand to bring back those jobs. Well, I suppose since President Trump did bring those jobs back that the Democrats would want a real witch hunt to find out where Donald Trump got his magic wand.

This morning it was announced that our GDP for the first quarter of 2019 was over 3%. Typically, the first quarter is the worst, so we can assume that the annual number will be higher than that. This was also something that Mr. Obama had said was impossible, that we would never again see 3% GDP.

But instead of lauding these incredible accomplishments, the Democrats need something to mask them from the people that benefit from them. And that something is the Russian collusion, delusion. They will not let it die because if they do, everyone will realize that Donald Trump is probably the best President that the United States has ever seen.

June 20, 2019

REPARATIONS FOR SLAVERY

Truthfully, one would think that this topic should have been settled when the last slave before the end of the Civil War ended had died. After all, who are you going to repay for being a slave if no one alive has ever been a slave?

Oh, I am sure that some could argue that slavery still exists, and it does just not in the sense that the Democrats want to talk about.

The present argument is about paying the descendants of the African slaves who were brought to America before and after the American Revolutionary War.

My question would be, pay them for what? Are we paying them for being in the greatest country that the world has ever known? Are we paying them for having more opportunities to grow and prosper than they would have in any other country on earth?

There was a time when the argument for reimbursing slaves made some degree of sense. That time was right after the American Civil War and the idea was tossed around a little bit. I seem to recall that someone espoused the idea of giving every freed slave 40 acres and a mule. And if that idea made sense back then perhaps it still does. If you could somehow trace the lineage of a black person back to his or her ancestors that were slaves in America, then maybe we could give them 40 acres and a mule.

Of course, there would be those that would balk at that idea depending on where the 40 acres would be carved out of. I would think that it would have to be land that the United States Government-owned, not some private person's land. Well, now wait a minute, if you trace the lineage of the landowner back to ancestors that owned slaves, then perhaps taking 40 acres from them might make sense. But, what if that person doesn't own 40 acres, then what? Maybe we could find a descendant of a slave owner that owns more than 40 acres and we could divvy that land up.

And which descendant of slaves, gets which parcel of land? Would it be fair to give some of their 40 acres in Alaska and others 40 acres in New York City? Or maybe someone would get 40 acres in the Florida Everglades while someone else would get 40 acres in Southern California.

I am sure that you can see that this whole idea is becoming ludicrous. First off if we need to repay someone for being brought to this country, then that person should have to show that they were in some way harmed from coming here. The very first settlers that came to this country were brought here against their wills. Or are we forgetting that our early settlements were penal colonies?

And it wasn't just blacks that were brought here as slaves. Many white people were brought here as indentured servants. Shouldn't they be included in this scheme of reparation? Once you open this can of worms, be apprised that there were Irish, Chinese, and other nationalities that were brought here against their will. Why even the ancestors of the Pilgrims would have to be included.

So if we are agreed that before we repay someone, they should have to prove that they were in some way harmed, should be looking at how they may have been helped. For instance, did any of them or their ancestors received government assistance of any form? Did they get free education, welfare, housing assistance, or free health care? If so, then should those things not be taken out of whatever payment might be agreed upon? If we did that it might well turn out that some of these folks owe our government money.

A recent poll indicated that only 27 percent of those polled believed that reparation for slavery was a good idea. So why are the Democrats so hell-bent on continuing this asinine argument? Because they are pandering for every minority vote that they can get. They want to take away Trump's advantage of being able to show that the Blacks and Hispanics in this country are better off today than at any time in their history.

Since records were kept on unemployment of minorities there has never been a time when minority unemployment was this low. If the Democrats do not deflect this truth, they stand to lose the minority vote and that would mean a Trump landslide in 2020.

August 4, 2019

DO WE NEED FEWER GUNS OR MORE GOD IN OUR LIVES?

Yesterday we had two more mass shootings and once again guns are being blamed for the carnage. I am reposting this article because I think that it is relevant to today's conversation as it was back when it was originally written.

Once again we are embroiled in the debate over whether to outlaw guns in our society. We got here because once again a troubled young man decided that he wanted to gain attention by killing a large number of innocent children. The gun did not load itself, walk to the car, get in, buckle its seatbelt, start the engine, drive to the school, get out, walk to the school and decide to start shooting anything in front of it. But it is easier to blame the inanimate object than to blame the evil that we have allowed to permeate our lives and the lives of our children.

That evil began when we decided that we do not need God in our lives. That evil continued when we decided that it was easier to believe that we evolved from monkeys or apes than to believe that we were created in the image of a living, loving God. Think about it, if that young man had been brought up to believe that his life and all lives had value not only to those that love them but to a loving God as well, it would have been difficult for him to decide to end all those lives.

That evil has grown with the invention of media that glorifies violence and killing. When our children are inundated on a daily basis with seeing images of people being shot, stabbed, blown up, and otherwise murdered as a means of entertainment, it is perhaps difficult for them to separate entertainment from reality.

I have listened to this debate all morning, hoping that someone would address the real problem but not one time has the word "morals" been mentioned. I do not care what legislation you pass. You could remove every gun from every person in the world and if you do not change the way we look at one another people will still find evil ways to do evil things. The problem is not guns. The problem is that we have as a whole become an amoral society. Even people that believe strongly in their faith in God are being forced to violate their beliefs or lose their ability to make a living.

No, the problem is not guns. The problem is a lack of morals. The problem is a lack of discipline for our young people. The problem was Dr. Spock and his idea that if you correct a child it is abuse. The problem was Charles Darwin and his idea that we came from monkeys, not from a loving God. No amount of legislation is going to solve this problem because it is not possible to legislate morality.

But as long as the discussion is about guns and not about morality this problem will never be solved.

September 25, 2019

THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT THE ROBIN HOOD AND HIS BAND OF MERRY MEN.

I know that many of you support Bernie and Liz because they promise to punish the rich. I realize that it is easy to vilify the rich when you have to wait until Friday to buy your groceries because if you buy them earlier in the week your bank balance will be overdrawn or your credit card will be over its limit.

But do you really believe that the fault lies with the rich? Is it possible that the problem might be that you just had to have that 40,000 dollar car when a quality used car would have been sufficient? Is it possible that you had to have a 72-inch tv at a cost of 1000 dollars when you could have bought a 57-inch tv for under 300 dollars? Or could it be that you are paying over 200 dollars per month for cable and watching maybe 5 of the channels when you could have spent 57 dollars one time to get an outside antenna and watch 50 to 60 channels for free?

Each of us makes decisions about our spending habits that have nothing to do with whether someone else has a million dollars or a billion dollars. Bernie used to talk about millionaires and billionaires. But, now that it is known that he is worth over 3 million dollars, he only talks about billionaires.

Many of you vilify Jeff Bezos and the Walton family because they have a lot of money. But, ask yourself, am I still buying products from Amazon, Wal-Mart, and Sam's Club? If so, now ask yourself if the Democrats get their way and they manage to take huge sums of money from those corporations, will the products you buy, cost less or more. I am sure if you are honest that you will agree that those products would be much more expensive.

Perhaps, you somehow believe that these Democrats will take from the rich and give to the poor. Bernie Sanders is not Robin Hood, and Liz Warren is not the Maid Marion. They could care less about anyone else other than themselves. They will promise anything to get elected, but if they are successful in getting their massive tax cuts through, the American people will suffer. But, I will bet you their own bank accounts will expand.

Don't buy into the Robin Hood syndrome, the only people that will suffer will be you.

November 12, 2019

A SPELL TO STOP A WITCH HUNT

They call it an impeachment inquiry. I guess that means they are inquiring if someone can find a reason to impeach the President of the United States. It is obvious that the Democrats have no idea what that reason might be. The Constitution says that a President can only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. And, the Democrats have failed to name even a small crime, no less a high crime.

You will notice that the Constitution does not say that a President can be impeached because you don't like the politics of the President or because you find what he or she says to be offensive, or because you are scared to death that if you can't get rid of him or her that your own crimes may be uncovered. And isn't that what this is really all about? Most politicians are corrupt. Corruption comes from power, and the longer someone has been in public office, the more power they amass. And because of that principle, politicians are deathly afraid of allowing anyone into public office unless they can control them through money or blackmail. They knew that Trump could not be bought and so the logical recourse would be to find something they could blackmail him with. And so Hillary sent her dogs to Ukraine to concoct a phony dossier about Trump and some prostitute. That was supposed to stop him before he was ever close to being elected. But alas, the people tuned out the noise and elected Donald Trump anyway.

But according to some in the FBI, they had an insurance policy just in case Trump somehow defied the odds and the polls and became President. It was to plant seeds in the minds of the American public that Trump was somehow an agent of the Russian government and that the only reason that he was elected was that Russia had somehow interfered on Trump's behalf to defeat Hillary Clinton. And since they had FBI resources up to and including James Comey working to show that connection, they were sure that Trump, although elected, would be quickly impeached.

When Trump fired Comey for being completely incompetent, Comey leaked his interpretations of some of his private conversations with the President to a friend who sent them to reporters. He stated that he did that to get a special counsel appointed to investigate the President and any dealing that he might have had with the Russian government. Of course, we know that he was successful in that Robert Mueller was appointed and spent millions of dollars and two years of time in a fruitless search for some impeachable offense. But, sadly, again, the Democrats came up with nothing. There was no evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians and there was no evidence of Trump interfering with the investigation.

Now, bear in mind that Mueller's entire complement of highly trained investigators was made up of people that openly had animous toward Trump. If there had been even a hint of corruption on the part of the President, they would have brought it out and blew it up to monumental proportions. But, there was nothing.

So, one might assume that the Democrats would come to the conclusion that there were no such things as witches, and would move on to the important business of running our country. Of course, if they did that they would have to admit that Trump was doing an admirable job since our economy was better than it had been in the past 50 or more years. They could not do that because then they would have nothing to run against in 2020. And even more important in their minds was that there might be some devastating things coming out in the IG's report. If they could not hang the President, they might find themselves swinging from the gallows. So like the long-ago days in Salem, they didn't have to prove that Trump was a witch, they just had to make the accusation, and he would either be burned at the stake or drowned or hung. Remember, the people of Salem did not have to prove that someone was a witch, the person accused had to prove they were not a witch. Proving a negative is extremely difficult, if not impossible.

So this brings us to phase 2 of Adam Schiff and his corrupt Democratic committee on hunting a witch named Donald Trump. From time to time, all Presidents have phone calls with leaders of other nations. And in most of those cases, those other countries are trying to get money from the United States. And in every incidence of our Country sending money to foreign governments, we want something in return for our investment. Maybe it is something about our National security. Perhaps we want access to the air space above the country that we are giving the money to. Perhaps it is the use of those countries' seaports or land routes in case we should never to traverse them. Perhaps we need to enter that country in search of a terrorist or other war criminal. Or perhaps that country has some intelligence about corruption in their country that somehow impacts our own country.

The money that we give to foreign governments in never just because we want to increase our National Debt by giving away money. All politicians realize that truth as a bargaining chip. Unless they want to make the bargaining chip sound like a crime, and then they call it "quid pro quo."

Failing to get people behind lynching the President with witch hunt number one, the Democrats almost immediately began witch hunt number two. Our President dared to ask a country that we were giving money to, to help root out corruption in our own government. And although that was not a crime, it might well uncover crimes committed by those presently in power in the House of Representatives. And, that could not be tolerated. And so here comes the term "quid pro quo" meaning this for that. It may not be a crime, but it sure sounds like it might be one. And remember it is the witch that has to prove innocence.

Now, understand if the American people had not been totally stupid in 2018 and elected a majority of Democrats to the House of Representatives, we would not be having this problem. And if the Democrats gave even a slight concern for the welfare of our country, we would not be having this problem. But, because situation one happened and situation two has been in play for at least the last 20 years we begin another hunt for a mythical being. And because situation one happened the corrupt Democrats control the witch hunt. Nobody that disbelieves in witches will be allowed to call witnesses that might prove that witches do not exist.

The second witch hunt began the way most of them have in ancient times. For instance, if a husband in Salem, was tired of his wife, he would get someone else to testify that they had seen her casting spells or practicing black magic.

Then the wife would be brought before a group of people who believed in witches, and she would be burned at the stake because she could not prove that she did not practice black magic since there was no such thing as black magic.

Now, the person that Adam Schiff got to accuse Trump of being a witch, they call a "whistleblower".

In Salem, this so-call whistleblower would have had to testify in an open court. But, Schiff saw that perhaps his connection with this modern whistleblower would be discovered if the whistleblower was called to testify and so when it was discovered that this person was closely connected to Schiff, Shifty Schiff immediately denied the Republicans the right to question the whistleblower. The Republicans then wanted to call Hunter Biden the son of the former Vice President to testify as to his possible corrupt dealings with the Ukrainian government. Schiff disallowed that request as well because that might have given credence to Trump's request. The Republicans then wanted Shifty Schiff to testify as to his relationship with the so-called whistleblower. Schiff also disallowed himself as a witness because his collusion with the whistleblower might be uncovered.

So, the witch hunt will proceed as most of the Salem witch trials went. Those that wanted to see a woman burned alive would testify, but nobody that wanted her to go free would be allowed to utter a word. But in retrospect, all of those witch trials had a built-in problem. If any person that they accused was a witch, the witch would have cast a spell on the entire town so that everyone would find the witch innocent.

So, today we need such a spell to save our President. And, I believe, that the person to cast that spell would be Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Though Shifty Schiff will not allow opposition witnesses, Graham can call them when the trial moves to the Senate. I believe that Graham should be proactive and release a list of witnesses he intends to call in the trial phase of the witch hunt. Among those witnesses should be Adam "Shifty" Schiff and his entire staff to expose the connection between Schiff and the whistleblower. He should also call the whistleblower to further show the corrupt connection. Hunter Biden and his quid pro Joe father should also be called to testify. And all other Democrats that might have been in on the corrupt proceeding should also be put on this public list.

If Graham in advance of the House Impeachment Inquiry released such a list and made it plain that all those people would be called to testify under oath before his committee, I believe that the entire witch hunt would end before it ever got started.

December 12, 2019

DID THE DEMOCRATS FALL INTO A TRUMP TRAP?

I am not sure that our President is this smart. I know that some of you folks think that Donald Trump is brilliant, and others of you think that he is as dumb as a box of rocks. I doubt that either of those things is true. But if my new theory of this whistleblower nonsense is even completely close to accurate, Donald Trump is closer to the brilliant category, or else he is the luckiest man on the face of the earth.

My original thought was that there wasn't a whistleblower. I thought that Adam Schiff had made the entire thing up. That became more and more obvious when Schiff said that there was no reason for the whistleblower to testify.

What I do know is regardless of how this thing got started, the Democrats were morons to push it to a trial for impeachment in the Senate. While they were playing games in the House of Representatives and not allowing the Republicans access to their so-called witness, they won't be able to do that in a Senate trial.

Once it goes to the Senate, then the Republicans will be in charge of the proceedings. Now all those so-called witnesses will be called to testify under oath, hopefully including Schiff and this whistleblower. Schiff will have to explain why he repeatedly lied in his House narrative. He will have to explain why the only evidence that he allowed was hearsay testimony that would not have been allowed in any criminal trial in the country.

And the deeper they go to uncover the truth, the more corrupt the Democrats will be shown to be. Before that trial is over, it will be obvious to any open-minded person that the Democrats only started the impeachment scenario because that was the only way they could stop Trump from being re-elected. And then one of the Democrats from California, apparently knowing that this attempt at removing a duly elected President would fail, said "If we can't get him with this one we will find something else."

Now to get back to whether Trump is a moron or is a genius. Suppose that there really was a whistleblower. And further, suppose that the President knew about this person before he made the phone call to the President of Ukraine. Remember, Donald Trump ran for President on the premiss that he would "drain the swamp." We know that he has tried hard to do just that but he never quite had enough evidence to flush out the bottom feeders. But, if he could bait the Democrats into starting this obvious witch hunt, then he would be able to bring all the corruption out into the light of day during the Senate trial.

I wonder if I underestimated our President. Maybe, just maybe he is as smart as some of you say. Maybe when this is all said and done, the Democrat party will be shown to be nothing more than a pile of vermin that needs to be flushed out.

I doubt that we will ever know if Donald Trump is that brilliant or just plain lucky. What I am hoping is that the American people are smart enough to vote out everyone that votes for his impeachment.

July 25, 2020

A GRAND EXPERIMENT, IS IT ENDING?

In 1992 it looked like the American people had enough of the weak, corrupt politicians that the two political parties had heaped upon us. They urged an outsider, Ross Perot to run for the presidency and he was doing quite well until someone threatened the lives of his family. I suspect the someone that was behind that was Bill Clinton. Because of that Perot dropped out of the race. Although he did come back towards the end of the campaign, he was never again a threat to the political machine of this country.

And until 2016 nobody from outside the major political parties came close to a serious run for the presidency. And then along came Donald Trump. When he announced his candidacy few took him seriously, and as a result, he was able to stay in the campaign without much interference from the mainstream media.

All that changed when he secured the nomination for President. But it was too late at that point. Trump sailed to victory in November of 2016. Now the political machine was in turmoil. How, could it happen that an outsider, a person not beholding to them had managed to rise to the highest office in the land?

But, they were not going to lie down and accept their fate. With the help of corrupt people in the intelligence community of the government, they started to investigate whether Trump had indeed won the election, fare, and square, or if he had secured the help of the Russian government. And even when that idea was debunked time and time again they have held onto that ridiculous notion.

Early in 2020, it appeared that Trump would cruise to victory. Our economy was better than it has ever been before, with all segments of the population better off than they had ever been in the past. Some people were even hoping that the economy would somehow collapse since that was there only hope that Trump would not be re-elected.

And low and behold a mysterious virus came out of China. It may just be a coincidence but Joe Biden and his son have deep ties to the communist regime in that country. If the virus had not been created in a lab over there, Biden would have stood no chance of being elected this fall. And even though Trump did everything humanly possible to keep our country safe, the virus rapidly spread across America and the rest of the world. The economy that was so robust, collapsed under the pressure of businesses being forced to close down.

Of course, the Democrats are using this national disaster to bolster their own political position.

So the question is, is the great Trump experience coming to an end? I hope not because if Trump loses, I doubt that any outsider will ever again decide to risk everything for the good of the United States. I guess Ross Perot had it right when he said, "If anyone is qualified to be President, they wouldn't want the job."

If you have questions, comments or suggestions please write to me at waynesimmes@yahoo.com

Other books by Wayne Simmes

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1028323

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1033521

