"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Sunday, October 28, 2018

Wednesday, September 19, 2018


1. Isn't it odd that in America, our flag and our culture offend so many people, but our benefits don't?

2. How can the federal government ask U.S. citizens to pay back student loans when illegal aliens are receiving a free education?

3. Only in America are legal citizens labeled "racists" and "Nazis," but illegal aliens are called "Dreamers.”

4. Liberals say, "If confiscating all guns saves just one life, it's worth it". Well then, if deporting all illegals saves just one life, wouldn't that be worth it?

5. I can't quite figure out how you can proudly wave the flag of another country, but consider it punishment to be sent back there.

6. The Constitution: It doesn't need to be rewritten, it needs to be reread.

7. William F. Buckley once said, "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other points of view, and are then shocked and offended when they discover there are other points of view."

8. Joseph Sobran said, "'Need' now means wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means wanting to keep your own. 'Compassion' is when a politician arranges the transfer."

Saturday, June 23, 2018

Change of tune???

“We all agree on the need to better secure the border and punish employers who choose to hire illegal immigrants. We are a generous and welcoming people here in the United States, but those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law. We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.” Barack Obama, 2005

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Strange response by Wray

The long-waited IG report on the Hillary email investigation was released this past Thursday, and one of the conclusions presented by Inspector General Horowitz was that he found no political bias by FBI officials. Yet, in spite of this conclusion, FBI Director Christopher Wray said Thursday evening that he will emphasize the necessity of "objectivity" by all FBI employees and will conduct multiple seminars to teach employees how to keep their political views out of their investigatory decisions. This seems like a strange way to respond to a report that makes no accusation of political bias. Hmmm. 

Thursday, May 24, 2018

I wonder...

A couple of days ago, former DNI James Clapper acknowledged on The View that in 2016, the FBI planted a spy (though he doesn't like that word) in the Trump campaign. He explained that the purpose was not to spy on Trump, but to protect him and his campaign from Russian interference. This begs the question, why didn't the FBI do the same thing for Hillary? After all, Hillary's home server was hacked and the DNC's computers were hacked after Leon Podesta fell for a Russian phishing scam. This sounds as though the FBI may have been favoring Trump. Maybe it was not the Russians but the FBI that threw the election to Trump. Hmmm.

Sunday, May 13, 2018

Trump achievements

Jim Acosta meant it as a criticism, but I think it's a nice listing of some of President Trump's most significant achievements. Here is what Acosta tweeted: "Obama policies dumped by Trump: Iran deal, Paris Climate Agreement, Trans-Pacific Trade Deal, DACA, ObamaCare Individual Mandate." Obama's mistake was that, other than the individual mandate, he got none of these "accomplishments" enshrined in law. They were all nothing more than, as Acosta rightly calls them, policies. And as Trump has demonstrated, policies can change.

Sunday, January 21, 2018

Perhaps the Founders were wiser than we are....

Yes, it's a nice idea designed to foster a sense of camaraderie and bipartisanship, but I believe it's time for the Senate's 60 vote rule to be jettisoned. Why should everything come to a grinding stop in the name of empowering the minority? The constitutional means for acquiring power is called an election, not Senate rules. I haven't taken time to look for it in the Federalist Papers, but could it be that the designers of our government understood that requiring anything more than a simple majority was a prescription for continual gridlock. Perhaps this is why they authorized the VP to vote in the event of a tie. So even though it could hinder the conservative agenda when the Republicans once again lose the majority (which is inevitable), I say, "Let the chips fall where they will." The current situation is a grotesque display of incompetence and irresponsibility on both sides. Not only that, it is an embarrassment to the good people of our nation.

Friday, January 19, 2018

Trump's first year

When Donald Trump took office, I determined that I would give him one year before I decided how I felt about him as president. To me, the way he would govern was a big unknown, since few men actually govern they way they campaign. Of course, I heard Hillary's concerns that he would be a dictator and others say that he is ego-maniacal, dimwitted, and/or mean-spirited. I never really saw Trump that way, but instead saw him more as a high-spirited, amazingly successful New York construction worker, the kind that whistles at pretty girls as they walk by. Truth be told, I voted for him because the alternative was unthinkable. I told many people I would rather roll the dice with Trump that get a sure thing with Hillary.

After a year, I have made my decision about President Donald J. Trump. Before I say what I think, however, let me first say that I consider all Tweeting and all talk of Russian collusion, obstruction, impeachment, 25th Amendment, and sexual harassment to be mere noise, like static on a radio. Static doesn't change the content of the broadcast, but it does distract from it and make it harder to hear. This is why I pay absolutely no attention to these matters. I only care about what the president actually accomplishes. As I see it, the only thing that will be able to stop Donald Trump from serving out his full term is either a heart attack or an assassin. It will not be a senatorial conviction for having committed "high crimes or misdemeanors."

So what is the actual content of the broadcast? In other words, what has he actually accomplished? A year ago I told several friends that I will be happy if Trump does four things: 1) shuts down the southern border, 2) decimates ISIS, 3) puts a strong anti-abortion conservative on the Supreme Court, and 4) eliminates Obamacare. On that basis, I am fairly happy, though clearly there is more to be done. For example, funds for the wall need to be allocated and the rest of Obamacare needs to be zapped. But these are on Congress, not Trump. He will sign the legislation if they pass it.

A few other accomplishments that have added to my happiness are lowering my taxes, pulling out of the Paris climate accord, approving the Keystone pipeline, eliminating funding for abortions in other countries, putting the kabash on TPP, making Jim Mattis Secretary of Defense, and making Mike Pompeo head of the CIA. I am also happy that he has shown himself to be a deal-maker and not a dictator. He has shown that he respects the role of Congress, even though I'm sure he has been quite frustrated at time with a few of his fellow Republicans.

Sunday, November 26, 2017

A few thoughts on Roy Moore

Article I, Section 2.5 of the US Constitution states: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

I don't know what Roy Moore did 38 years ago. Some of the accusers seem credible, yet a lot of their details have been shown to be inaccurate and impossible. I do know what Al Franken did, since we have a photo. But I can't see how the Senate can expel a properly elected Senator for something he did before he served in the Senate. I realize that the last portion of the above referenced passage from the Constitution seems completely open-ended, but is it really? Isn't it actually an extension of the thought that comes immediately before it? In other words, if a member exhibits "disorderly behaviour," the Senate can "punish him," or with a vote of 2/3, "expel" him. Under what line of thinking would a man's conduct before the voters sent him to Congress be considered "disorderly behaviour"?  Aren't the voters the judge and jury? If the people of Alabama find Roy Moore to be the man they want representing them in the Senate, how do the other 99 members get to throw him out? And I would also argue, how do they get to throw out Al Franken?

To date I have not heard any of this discussed in the media. Everyone seems to just assume the Senate can throw a man out of their elitist little club for any ole reason at all. To me, that seems constitutionally dubious.

Historically, the Senate has expelled one man for siding with the Creek Indians against the government and several for siding with the Confederacy. That's it. So I guess treason qualifies as "disorderly behaviour." But all of these treasonous behaviours took place while these men were in office, not long before they faced the electorate.

Another point: I am disgusted with how quickly the GOP Ruling Class convicted Roy Moore and started trying to throw him overboard. I don't know what he did or didn't do, but I'm for letting the people of Alabama pass the verdict. And frankly, I would hope that people would not judge me today by some of the really stupid stuff I did in my early years. Men can grow and mature and develop better character. To be honest, the very fact that McConnell et al are so desperate to keep him out of the Senate causes me to think we really need him in there.

Friday, November 3, 2017

Time for action

As the bodies continue to pile up, I feel it's time for Congress to enact some common sense truck control. First of all, we need to immediately initiate universal background checks on anyone attempting to rent a truck. In addition, there should be a three-day waiting period. I think it would also be reasonable to limit the size of gas tanks and remove the muffler so people will be able to hear the truck coming at 'em. I'm also quite sure that the trial lawyers would support a proposal to hold truck manufacturers liable for the death of anyone killed by a truck, especially if it's a high-powered truck. As for the young man who drove the truck in the recent NYC attack, he deserves to be deported and allowed to reenter the country at least four more times before he is forced to stand trial. On the other hand, the cop that shot him ought to be charged immediately. I maintain that if these common sense measures had been taken before before the NYC event, there is no telling how many lives might have been saved.