Yes, I know this video is almost a year old. First of all, it takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute BS than the effort to create it, second, I've had other things to occupy my time while I have been writing and researching this.

Robert Reiche, economist extraordinaire (just ask him), New York Times columnist and destroyer of nations put out a video in April 2019 which is nothing more than another rapid fire video, full of platitudes, carefully distorted half-truths that sound good and talking points that are totally devoid of any sustenance.

I pulled apart one of his points of his “The 7 Biggest economic lies” video in this post. Here I will tackle all twelve of these.

Before I begin, a couple of points so we have a common ground to work upon. First, Reich attempts to portray “The Rich” like Scrooge McDuck, like this:

In reality, someone like Bill Gates (net worth $90 Billion or more) probably has less than 1% of his wealth in cash, either physical or in a bank. The other 99% of his wealth is in various forms of investments. Stocks, bonds, property and the like. These investments have a variety of degrees of difficulty to turn into cash.

Second, when you own something, it’s worth only what someone else will pay you for it, not what you paid for it. Say I have a house I bought for $100,000 ten years ago. If for whatever reason I try to sell it today and the best offer I could get is $30,000, then the house is worth only $30,000, no matter what me, the county property assessor or the appraiser says. The person who sets the value is the person who is willing to shell out the most cash. Also, the value of things go up and down. As I write this, shares of Microsoft are going for $178.59 and Bill has about 298 million shares, which works out to about $53.2 billion and 3.8% of the total company stock. If Bill did something stupid and caused the stock price to tank to $60, he now only has $17.8 billion in stocks, if he sold them. The same goes for cars, property, collectables and the like.

Third, you become wealthy by having a cash income greater than your expenses over an extended period. If you have $1,000 a week income, but you spend $1,100 a week (rent, utilities, food, other expenses, etc.) you will never become wealthy. If you have that $1,000 a week income, but you only spend $800 and put the remaining $200 into an investment (or even under your mattress), that’s how wealth is acquired.

Here is the video, be ready to be stupefied.

Here are my responses, point-by-point.

Myth 1 – A top marginal tax rate applies to all of a person’s total income or wealth.
I have to admit, he’s right on this point. The US has a regressive “last dollar” marginal tax rate. I’m sure Reich was deliberately correct on the opening point to get you to let your guard down because he “might be reasonable this time.” Fat chance.

Myth 2 - Raising taxes on the rich is a far-left idea.
Look at it this way. Since the establishment of the Sixteenth Amendment (the income tax) in 1913, we have seen five presidents enact some kind of lowering or restructuring of the income tax rates. Those presidents are/were Hoover, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush 43 and Trump. Kennedy proposed the tax cut, but was assassinated before it passed. It happened under Johnson and was considered part of Kennedy’s legacy. All of these tax cuts had success, some better than others. All were/are Republicans except for Kennedy. And while Kennedy was a Democrat, if you were to look at his 1960 stances on race relations, taxes, gun ownership and more, his positions viewed through the political lens of 2020, he could undoubtedly be called a Racist Republican Nazi.

Then Reich quotes an opinion poll showing the support of a general “tax the rich” proposal, including 57% of Republicans. All this tells me is Leftists like Reich have been effective in making the Liberal talking point about having the rich “pay their fair share” sound reasonable.

According to The Tax Foundation, in 2014 the top 1% of US households paid 35% of the total income taxes paid to the federal government.

The 90% top marginal tax rates in the 1950's is correct. But did you know there were less than 50 households out of a total of 60 million at that time which were subject to that tax bracket? That’s 0.00000083% of households.

Myth 3 – A wealth tax is unconstitutional.
Remember, the Constitution is a document that defines and limits the federal government. Property taxes are determined, assessed and collected on the city and county level and have zero to do with the federal government. State sales and income taxes also have nothing to do with the federal government.

Then Reich says, “But THE RICH hold most of their wealth in stocks and bonds, so why should these forms of wealth escape taxation?” This guy claims to be an economist, right?

You have already paid income tax of some kind (federal, state and local) on the money you used to purchase those stocks and bonds. When you sell them at a profit, that’s called INCOME and is taxed as capital gains. The same goes for losses. If you buy stock at $10 and sell it at $5, that’s a loss and can be deducted from any profitable trades you made in that year.

And when Mr. Reich brings up Article I Section 8, he neglects the last half of the clause: “…but all duties, imposts (a tax on imported goods, called tariffs today), and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” Which means this doesn’t include taxing personal income, or profits from sales. It means a tax on imported goods and it must be equal for the entire country.

The Sixteenth Amendment modified the power of the Congress to lay and collect income taxes and reads thusly:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

By that Amendment, Congress can tax personal income and set whatever tax rates they want, subject to the normal lawmaking process. Which includes capital gains tax rates.

Myth 4 – When taxes on the rich are cut, they invest more and when taxes on the rich are increased, economic growth slows. (Trickle-down economics)

“The Rich” have two things going for them that regular people don’t: accountants and campaign donations. Accountants practice the art of tax avoidance by structuring a person’s or company’s assets in such a way as to pay the least amount of tax possible. They do this by knowing the rules of the game (tax laws) and taking advantage of every deduction possible.

Campaign donations are really nothing more than an investment, in politicians rather than companies. By “investing” in politicians, the politicians write laws into the tax code that are advantageous to the donors. I don’t like it either, but that’s the reality of our present political system.

I have already spoken at length on “Trickle-Down Economics.”

I found a Pew Research chart that showed between 1981 and 1991, the group with the lowest income did grow by 1%, while the top tier income group grew by 2%. So yes, some people became poorer, but more got richer.

Now Reich brings up a chart saying that average real GDP growth between 1950 and 2010 averaged 2.1% for lower tax rates and 4% when the tax rate is 71% or higher. I verified his numbers, and they are correct. I see statistically equal samplings (18 years for the higher tax rate and 14 for the lower), but I have learned to never trust Bob when it comes to statistics, and I was justified in my distrust. Bob should go into magic, with his mad misdirection skills he’d give David Copperfield a run for his money.

You have to pay attention to what is being compared. Reich is doing the equivalent of comparing the length of women’s skirts in the US to the price of coal in India, i.e., these things are not related. Instead of comparing the whole GDP, why not compare each person’s share of the GDP? Because the population as a whole changes, just like the GDP itself. So I found the data for “Average Real GDP Growth Per Capita” (GDP divided by the number of people in the country), and lo and behold, his GDP growth for the high tax rate drops from 4% to 1.07%, while the number change for the lower taxation increases slightly from 2.1% to 2.33%.

Myth 5 – When you cut taxes on corporations, they invest more and create more jobs.

Reich then explains how corporations took the tax cut and bought back their own stock, keeping the stock price high. This is a shell game, and Reich is not explaining the rules.

The “Market cap” of a company (its price if someone wants to buy it) is determined by the number of shares issued times the share price. So which is a bigger company? One that has 1 million “shares outstanding” and has a share price of $100, or one that has 50,000 shares that trade for $2,000 each? They have the same “market cap” so the companies are considered the same size.

Corporations like to keep their stock price in a certain range to make them attractive to certain types of investors. Wal-Mart keeps its’ share price around $100 a share, while Google/Alphabet’s stock price is over $1,100. If the corporation grows, the stock price goes up (see math above). If the value goes down, same thing.
When the stock price goes out of the target range, the corporations can do several things:

• Stock split: When the price gets too high, they “stock split.” What was one share becomes two (or three, or four, it depends). With a 2-for-1 split, that single $100 share becomes two $50 shares.
• Stock merger: This is the opposite of a split. If you have two $50 shares, they become a single $100 share. Don’t ask about odd numbers, I don’t know.
• Stock buyback: A corporation purchases and keeps shares to reduce the “shares outstanding” and raise/keep the stock price up. This is part of the first rule of economics, the supply and demand curve.

Mr. Reich gives you the impression that this is a “nefarious action.” But if you pay attention to the markets, all three of these are common occurrences.

“Enriching executives and wealthy investors but providing no real benefit to the economy.” This is one of these few times where the phrase “A rising tide lifts all boats” applies. It doesn’t matter if you have 10 shares or 10 million shares, you benefit from a higher stock price (when you sell it) and the associated dividends. So not just “executives and wealthy investors.” All investors benefit.

As a last point, looking at the recent unemployment numbers, the number of unemployed people are at records lows, like “the last 50 years” record lows. That includes Blacks and Hispanics, who historically have had higher unemployment numbers than the general population.

During Obama’s tine in the White House, seeing a business with a “help wanted” sign was an anomaly, on the scale with “hen’s teeth.” As I write this in 2020, you can’t turn around without bumping into a help wanted sign. In such a market, companies have to pay more to gain and keep good workers, so employee pay has been increasing since Trump took office. Yes, the pay of the top 20% of workers is rising, what isn’t reported is the pay for the bottom 20% is increasing more.

What was that again, Bob? I would call this “myth” a reality.

Myth 6 – The rich already pay more than their fair share in taxes.

Reich starts out by saying, “This is misleading because it only talks about income taxes.” Remember, wealth is acquired when your expenses are lower than your income for an extended period of time.

Reich then shows a pie chart with Income Taxes, Payroll Taxes, State Taxes, Local Taxes and Property taxes. Again, are we talking about federal, state or local taxes, or all three combined? He jumps back and forth, hoping to confuse you. Income taxes include those capital gains taxes paid by THE RICH. They file a 1040 like the rest of us and use Schedule D to figure out their Capital Gains (or Loss) and the taxes assessed from that form end up on line 11a on the 1040 form.

Payroll taxes (invented by Milton Friedman) are your tax pre-payments to the government that are taken out of every paycheck. What you paid in payroll taxes during the year is compared to what taxes you actually need to pay when you file. If your payroll tax withholding is too high, you get a big refund check (you gave Uncle Sam an interest-free loan) when you file your taxes. If you didn’t withhold enough from your paycheck, you have to send the difference in to get square. So, federal, state and local income taxes all fall under that “payroll taxes” umbrella.

And wouldn’t you think THE RICH pay the same rate in property taxes?

In my county, there is a 1.38% tax on the fair market value of a property. A $75,000 house pays $1,035 a year, a $7,500,000 house pays $103,500 a year. Or does Mr. Reich suggest we should go with a regressive property tax system like our income taxes?

Myth 7 – The rich already pay capital gains taxes.

Reich says, “The rich avoid paying capital gains taxes because they pass their wealth on to their heirs.” Then he passes quickly over “unrealized capital gains.”

See paragraph 5 at the top of this article. An “unrealized capital gain” happens no matter if you hold onto it yourself or pass it to your heirs, any profits (or losses) made are counted when you sell the asset. If I used $100,000 of my money to buy an investment and a couple years later it’s appraised for $200,000, if I haven’t sold it, that extra $100,000 is an unrealized capital gain. It is not taxed nor counted as taxable income because I haven’t sold it yet. “Unrealized” is “ghost money” because if I (or the government) think it’s worth $200,000, but I can only sell it for $95,000, then I have a “capital gains loss” (I know that’s confusing).

Myth 8 – The estate tax is a death tax that hits millions of Americans.

I admit it, he’s right on this one. The estate tax doesn’t kick in until you have assets in excess of $11 Million for a single person, $22 Million for a couple, and a minuscule amount of estates are affected.

But you see, my positions on things like this are based on principles, not political ideology or which way the political winds are blowing. Would you want the IRS showing up at the funeral of your parent, their hand out asking for money? Once you realize the size of the estate is irrelevant, the side of the issue to be on becomes easy. Remember, the IRS will collect taxes when the property is sold.

Myth 9 – If taxes are raised on the wealthy, they’ll find ways to evade them. So very little money will be raised.

Now we skirt the edge of Constitutionality here. Reich states “Elizabeth Warrens’ 2% wealth tax will raise about $2.75 Trillion over 10 years.”  First of all, that’s an accounting trick. Let me put it this way, every year, Reich claims this tax would raise $275 Billion, which is about 7% of the annual federal budget. That’s what Leftists have previously called “a rounding error.” It’s also only about 20% if the annual deficit. It doesn’t really matter if you’re overspending by $4 or $5, you’re still overspending.

The Constitutionality of such a tax could be contested under Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 which reads,

“No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.”

A bill of attainder is a law that is directed toward a specific person or groups of people. A “wealth tax” that would affect only the top 1% (about 2 million people or 0.00625% of the population) could bump up against this Clause.

A “loophole” is an imperfection in how a law is written or interpreted. Taking advantage of loopholes is called tax avoidance and is legal. Tax evasion is where you falsify documents to pay less taxes (or don’t file or pay them at all) and against the law. Loopholes can be accidental or they can be intentional on the part of the law writer. The more complex the tax laws are, the easier it is to have loopholes. And with the current tax law running over 75,000 pages, that’s a lot of loopholes.

This was one of the reasons for the Flat Tax proposal. There were no deductions, no write-offs, no exemptions, no targeted tax cuts. Line 1, “How much did you make?” Line 2, “Multiply Line 1 by the tax rate.” Line 3, “How much have you paid already?” Line 4, “Subtract Line 3 from Line 2. If positive, send this amount in.”

Then Reich says “ 'for a 70% tax over $10 million' we would raise a whopping $720 billion over the next ten years." Again, per year that works out to $72 billion a year, or about a quarter of Warren’s 2% wealth tax.

Myth 10- The only reason to raise taxes on the wealthy is to collect revenue.

“Help us reduce the national debt?” Really Bob? Really?

Sorry Bob, the only way to reduce the national debt is if the federal government spends less than it raises in tax revenues. Just raising taxes (no spending cuts) is a horrible way to achieve that goal. In 1981, the federal government collected about $505 Billion in taxes and spent $578.8 Billion, leading to a spending deficit of $73.8 Billion. When Reagan left office in 1988, thanks to his tax cuts the government collected $949 billion that year. Thanks to Congress, the 1988 deficit was $155.18 Billion because Congress spent $1.104 Trillion. If Congress had kept spending level (or near to it), we would have been filling in that hole of the national debt instead of digging deeper.

Then Reich spills the beans by saying, “It’s to promote [income] equality and prevent oligarchy.”

So, a small cadre of people who get Political Science degrees in prestigious Universities and immediately enter into government service, then work to rise to positions of power in the federal government and basically dictating what is actually done, not necessarily what the elected leaders tell them to do, how is this not an oligarchy?

And if we confiscate the wealth of "The Rich," then who would have the incentive to start a small business with the intent of becoming wealthy? I mean, you put everything into your business, 80-100 hour work weeks, 3rd mortgage on the house, sell everything but the kids to keep things running until it takes off, then as soon as you become successful and get that big cash flow... the government takes most if not all of it.

Myth 11 – It’s unfair to raise taxes on the wealthy.

Let me put it this way. If you took every dollar, every asset of “The Rich” over $250,000, that would be about $1.5 Trillion dollars. At the current spending rate, that would fund the government from 12:01 January 1st until about April 30th at 8:30pm. There’s 244 days left in the year after we confiscate all the wealth of “The Rich.” And what are we going to do next year? There’s nothing left to take or tax from them. You didn’t shear the sheep and remove its wool, so it could grow more wool, you killed it, harvested its meat and other parts and there is nothing left.

Myth 12 – They earned it. It’s their money!

I just found a whole new level of stupid, and Bob’s his name. He sets up the strawman of Myth 12, then says, “[The Rich] couldn’t maintain their fortunes without what America provides… and a nation that respects private property rights.”

So he plagiarizes Obama’s “You didn’t build it” speech, then says "we live in a nation that respects property rights." Literally 82 seconds after Bob is talking about overtaxing “The Rich” to provide “income equality,” he then says, “…a nation that respects private property rights.” This makes my brain hurt. I’ve heard the phrase, “The logic is inescapable” before, for this instance I’m going to have to say, “The logic is unachieveable.” Bob is needing you to have the memory of a goldfish (11 seconds) to swallow his BS.

When we get right down to it, what is money but private property? Money is a measure of the value of my work product. The more valuable my work product is, the more money I get for a given period of time. Doctors are paid more than plumbers because their work product is more valuable.

And there you have it. My article on “What is money?” should enlighten you a bit as well.

I am angry that anywhere in the United States there is this attitude to do stuff like this. I cannot attribute it to evil, but there is an extremely twisted agenda at work, and the people who are moving that agenda forward do not care about the bodies and shattered lives left in their wake.

This was inspired by the story of James/Luna Younger, a 7-year-old boy who said, “I’m a girl!” at 3. Since then there has been a parental battle between the dad saying he’s a boy and the mom saying she’s a girl. I’m not choosing sides for or against either parent, my point is if this child goes through with this before they are an adult, the life of this person will be drastically impaired. Physically and emotionally this person will likely be a train wreck in 20 years.

I am angry about the unquestioning belief of a prepubescent child’s statement that they are transgender. Once a child voices this thought to an amenable parent or non-parental adult with authority (doctor, teacher, etc.), then these adults will start the process to dose the child with puberty-blocking drugs and scheduling gender reassignment surgery.

A child goes through a metamorphosis as they grow from child to adult, much like a caterpillar to a butterfly. Those of us who have had teenagers sometimes wish the teenagers would encase themselves in a cocoon until they emerge as adults. It would save us from a lot of yelling, slammed doors, Teen Angst and Boy Bands. 😉

A child is under the authority of an adult because children do not have the capacity of complex thought and how actions now can have consequences for the rest of their life. It’s been proven the rational part of the human brain isn’t fully developed until the mid-20s. When the Brain Starts Adulting. Children are depending on their Amygdala (otherwise known as the “lizard brain”) to react to situations they encounter to keep them alive. It’s all reflex and biological memory. The reasoning part of the brain (pre-frontal cortex) starts developing during the teenage years and finally starts to take full control by the time they are legally adults. The chaos of the “teenage years” is from the fight for control between the amygdala and the pre-frontal cortex. This is why teenagers are rational one moment and reflexive and emotional the next.

When you get right down to it, human beings (on the physical plane) are nothing more than bags of chemicals. These chemicals are used throughout the body to do everything. Clot blood, heal skin, move muscles, be happy, be sad, be in love, regulate organ function and so on. The organs that trigger and control the metamorphosis we call puberty are the sexual organs.

Someone please explain this to me. We have a child, prepubescent or going through puberty. If that child expresses that they want to have chocolate and Pepsi three times a day every day as their entire diet, the parent and society says “NO” because the child can’t see the result of taking such a course of action. On the other hand, if that same child expresses gender dysphoria (biological boy who thinks and believes they are a girl and vice versa), this has to be acted upon immediately, totally and irrevocably.

Would you break into a caterpillar’s cocoon and give it surgery and chemicals to change its’ final form from a butterfly to a moth? So why are we doing it with children?

My personal core belief of “Maximum Personal Freedom” applies here. I have multiple friends and acquaintances who are actively moving from one sex to the other, or have already completed the process and are physically of the sex that matches the sex they are in their head. I don’t understand their struggles and I cannot conceive of what they are going through. But I support them without criticism. I do not judge them for their decision. They are adults, they had access to medical procedures and medications that allowed them to do that. It was their choice and that’s all I got to say about that.

My point is, doing this massive hormonal and surgical intervention when they don’t have the reasoning ability to understand the long-term consequences of their decision, either before or actively experiencing puberty, is a bad idea. This is when their body needs those organs and hormones to grow into their full potential. To alter that process, you’re basically killing butterflies before they have a chance to become one.

I had another article to put up today, I thought this was better: Appeals court tosses Democrats' emoluments lawsuit against Trump. The Emoluments clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) states:

...no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign State."

As one of the first attacks against Trump (the illegal spying of his campaign being the first) was his "profiting" from his businesses when foreign heads of state and other powerful people would book hotel rooms and such at Trump-owned locations. the federal appeals court in a 3-0 ruling, dismissed this case brought by 186 Representatives and 29 Senators for a lack of a better term, "having a hissy fit" (my words). The Congressmen could not raise enough support in their respective Chambers to do anything about it. So, as Leftists are want to do when they can't have their way, they run crying crocodile tears to a sympathetic judge to issue a ruling based on political beliefs, not the four corners of the law.

Now, there are two other emolument lawsuits still grinding their way through the court system, we will have to see how they come out.

But I can poke a hole very quickly in almost any emoluments argument thusly: The overall stipulation that Trump is "profiting" from heads of State, etc. is bullshit on it's face. What would be the profit/influence difference to Trump if a foreign head-of-state spends a week in a Trump Hotel, or I, a regular guy, rent the same rooms for the same length of time? Would that get me "the ear of the president"? Obviously, if I won the lottery and rented 100 luxury suites for a month at Mar-A-Lago, would that give me standing to influence Trump? I would have access to him, because he eats dinner in the dining room and "presses the flesh" with the other people there. But could I start asking for special favors because I rented so many suites for so long? Don't be absurd. Trump makes the same profit every time a room is rented, it doesn't matter if you rent it for a day, week or year. The price is the price and does not go up or down depending on who you are (unless you're racked up enough Trump Points to stay a free night).

I have to gloat a bit here, the Dems are Zero in the wins category with Trump the Honey Badger. The spying failed to turn up anything, Russian collusion evaporated, along with the "Quid Pro No" with the Ukrainians, the impeachment was nothing but empty charges, and now (this) emoluments fight failed.

I think they would have more success if they employed the assassins sent to take out Inspector Clouseau.

I remember the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. He was impeached for lying under oath in a deposition, which is an actual crime. You can look it up here, 18 U.S. Code § 1621. A deposition, I might add, that I agree with Justice Kavanaugh that should never have taken place, because if the President is forced to address civil complaints against him while in office, it distracts him from leading the country.

During that trial and right before the end of the trial, Senator Charles Schumer (D- NY) penned a passionate letter. Here it is, Charles Schumer’s 1999 letter about impeachment comes back to bite him. Replacing "Clinton" with "Trump," "Republican" with "Democrat" and "Paula Jones" with "Ukraine," this letter is very telling and damning against the Democrats. If, of course, they had things like, Honor, Integrity, Morals and Sanity.

I will close with this, from the end of Senator Schumer's letter:

In the eyes of the Founding Fathers, that is a legitimate consideration in deciding whether a President should be removed. And for six months, the American people in every segment of the country have been unwavering in their view that the President should not be removed.

They remain unshakable in their belief that the Congress, the Courts, and the press had gone too far. They were the only, truly rational actor in the whole drama. God bless them.

The people and the founders are the twin oaks that stand tall amidst this sad episode of American history. But if the cycle of political recrimination and scandalizing continues, the American people will become more alienated and cynical and shaken by the political process and they, too, will lose faith in the great instrument the Founding Fathers have given us.

If it gets to the point where the American people become too cynical we could lose it all.

After this is over let’s end the recriminations. Let’s not blame Ken Starr, or bash the President, or scapegoat the House Managers. Let’s instead think about what brought us to this point.

Let us shake hands and say we are now going to forego bringing down people for political gain. Let us understand that our leaders have foibles, and though we must be held to a higher standard, let us not make it a sport to expose those weaknesses.

These are words that the Democrats should take to heart.

In the movie Dr. Strangelove, Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, at the point where the Soviet Ambassador tells the US President, "We have a Doomsday Device that we haven't told you about which will destroy the world if we're attacked." Doctor Strangelove then said to the Soviet ambassador, "The whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost IF YOU KEEP IT A SECRET!"

And so it is with the Democrats. Yes, they voted on Articles of Impeachment this past Wednesday. But according to Noah Feldman in his article Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate, the Impeachment is in this kind of "Schrödinger's cat" state until the Senate is made formally aware of the vote.

And make no bones about it, Mr. Feldman is totally in favor of Trump being Impeached and removed from office, so I'm sure that he's a bit reluctant to bring this up because it makes clear just how much of a foolish derphead Nancy and the rest of the Democrats are. I applaud him for his intellectual integrity.

You gotta love it folks. An Impeachment that's not really an Impeachment. Like so many other efforts of Democrats... well, The Bard said it best in Macbeth Act 5, Scene 5:

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

The Democrats knew from the start they would never get Trump removed from office. They just wanted to put that little " * " by his name, for the footnote in history that means "Impeached." Except they can't even do that right. And because they don't have the testicles to go down fighting, they won't even get their tiny little asterisk.

SPECIAL NOTE: I am still working on the development of an application which is taking all of my creative time and energy. But I just had to get this out...

When the Mueller report came out a few months ago, I had an acquaintance totally believe and repeatedly tell me there was actual evidence that President Trump "committed collusion with the Russians." I asked him to quote the page, paragraph and passage in that 448-page report that supported his position. He just kept repeating "IT'S IN THE REPORT! READ IT!!!" Yet, he couldn't point to anything that support his position. Yet, in my perusal of that same report I found (page 10, paragraph 1 of the document, pg 2 of the "Introduction to Volume I"):

"...the [Muller] investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

In case you didn't know it, in this country the bedrock of our legal system is the concept that a person is "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." The lack of evidence (to prove or disprove) is not proof of guilt or a reason to keep digging. Investigations also do not "exonerate" the people being investigated. If there is no evidence that a crime was committed, how could there be a possibility that the investigated person committed a crime that didn't happen, or "prove" that the accused didn't commit the crime? It would be like investigating someone for robbing a bank in a specific city on a specific date, when no bank was robbed in that city on that date. Expecting an exoneration in such a case is trying to prove a negative (e.g., at Noon on a sunny day, prove the sun rose in the East and/or sets in the West. You can't, because at that moment, it's overhead.). I can't lay out evidence that you didn't do something that didn't happen.

Now, let's compare that to James Comey's July 5th 2016 press conference, where he outlined the actions of Clinton and her team:

Yes, it does not include his overreach from the realm of investigator to prosecutor, "no prosecutor would move forward with this." As the investigator, he has no input on the decision to file charges or not. That is the job of the prosecutor. His reaching that conclusion as the investigator clearly exceeded his authority. But that's a discussion for another time.

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive and highly classified information..."

Whereupon he details about seven email chains that Clinton sent and received,

"There is evidence that to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

Now, I can point to the laws concerning the handling of classified information, namely 18 U.S.C. § 798 - U.S. Code, section (a),

"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--"

Sending and receiving unencrypted emails over the Internet is like sending a post card through the US Mail. Anyone who handles it can read the information written on it. Let me also say, "intent" is not part of the code to determine if the law was broken. If I had during my time in the Navy when I handled classified documents, left one unguarded in a place where people without the proper clearance would have had access to it, it didn't matter if I had left it out by accident or on purpose. I did it and that's all the prosecutor has to prove to convict me. I would have gone to Fort Leavenworth for a very long stay.

You also have some degree of mens rea, which is Latin for "guilty mind." There are 4 levels of mens rea,

1. acting purposely - the defendant had an underlying conscious object to act
2. acting knowingly - the defendant is practically certain that the conduct will cause a particular result
3. acting recklessly - The defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk
4. acting negligently - The defendant was not aware of the risk, but should have been aware of the risk

As Comey detailed above, Clinton and whom she was emailing with unquestioningly met #4, and considering how persnickety the government IT people are about setting up their systems to prevent incidents like this, plus the constant training of workers on this subject, I'd say Clinton & Co. hit #3 as well.

I covered all that to show you the difference between a credible accusation, versus a bullshit accusation.

Credible == definable act, the specific law violated and some level of mens rea.

Bullshit == no definable act, no specific law, just an ambiguous word that implies improper behavior and no mens rea (since no law was being violated).

To illustrate, let's say I have a friend with a birthday approaching. I collude with his wife to throw him a party for the occasion. Did his wife and I break a law if we "colluded" on this project? Also, "quid pro quo" is Latin for "I give you something, you give me something that we both benefit from." If I do work for my employer and he pays me in cash, then I take that cash to the supermarket and buy food, I have engaged in two separate "quid pro quo's." I spent time and effort for my employer and he paid me for that work product, then I paid the grocery to receive food.

Now we have this "Ukrainian scandal" where Trump, during a recorded and transcribed phone call, Trump is accused of offering a "quid pro quo." Please show me in the transcript where that happened. Don't say "It's in there! Read it!" quote me the parts that support your accusation.

With all that being said, can anyone tell me what act did Trump perform, what section of the US code did he violate and did he meet any level of mens rea?

Last point. Biden and his boast about "getting a prosecutor fired" (1:20 point of the video below) was not a quid pro quo. That was extortion. I have to ask, why is the Vice President of the United States, threatening the withholding of a Billion dollars in military aid to Ukraine unless this internal state prosecutor is fired? Why does the United States seriously have an interest in any specific official in another country, unless that person somehow posed a threat to the United States, a high-ranking US government official or a person directly or indirectly related to said official?

I started writing this post about article that was spawned by the mass shooting at the Garlic Festival, but as I have been writing this, another mass shooting has occurred in an El Paso Wal-Mart, another mass shooting in Dayton, OH and a mass stabbing in Orange County, California.

The article is Angry young men continue to be America’s greatest threat by Maureen Callahan.

Ms. Callahan laments that:

"From those mass shooters who have attacked the innocent before, we know it’s a specific strain of anger — deep, repressed, biblically vengeful — felt most commonly by young men, almost always white, who report feeling alienated, dispossessed, misunderstood, victimized and all too often rejected by women."

All I can say, Ms. Callahan, it is way more than that. She lays the blame on:

"...first-person shooter games, violent pornography, through racism and a fascination with guns and violence..."

[...]

"...a president who may be our angriest ever, who unleashes daily a fusillade of threats and name-calling and sexist remarks and racist dog whistles."

Then Ms. Callahan calls for

"...a collective dedication, from the White House on down, to figuring out why young men in the world’s greatest, most prosperous country are so goddamn angry."

I can tell you exactly why, Ms. Callahan, young men are angry. You can see the biggest contributors to this anger, you and all of your ultra-radacalized feminist sisters, by looking into the nearest mirror.

It got a slow start in the 70's when the roots of feminism grew. Feminism, the belief that women are equal to men in every way, is bullshit. I hate to break the news to you, women aren't equal to men. Women are different from men. There are many things men do that are superior to a woman's capabilities in those areas. Just like there are many things that women to that are superior to a man's capabilities in those areas. We are meant to work together, as a man-woman team. If they work together, the team is vastly superior to the individual.

In the 80's, Murphy Brown brought forth and normalized the concept that "a single woman can raise a child just as well, if not better than a mom and a dad together." The 90's brought us the concept of "all male-female sex is rape" and "all men are potential rapists."

Up until the 70's, if a couple got married, they stuck it out for life. Divorce was a social taboo, and it was widely recognized to be detrimental to the kids. Divorces were rare. They usually happened because the man was abusive to the wife and/or children and it was a get-out-or-die situation for her. Today, if the woman decides "I'm not in love with him anymore" she gets to leave and basically take everything and get alimony too. I'm being slightly hyperbolic here, but for the dad to win custody of the children, the woman would have to be smoking meth while pulling a train in the courtroom in front of the judge. A man loses all custody of his children on the word alone of the wife and the inertia of the divorce court system. For the dad to get custody, he has to provide reams of documented police reports, CPS notes, and statements from family and neighbors against the woman that clearly shows her irresponsible behavior towards her children. I have seen multiple friends and acquaintances get divorced. Every time, she gets the house, the kids, at least half of the retirement and alimony, while he gets the credit cards, paying the alimony, child support and every other weekend with the kids.

This terror-inducing state of living in a minefield where the man is in constant fear that at the woman's whim he can lose his children, his financial assets and his major possessions has rightly spooked men away from any long-term or serious relationships with women.

WARNING! STEREOTYPICAL AND SEXIST LANGUAGE AHEAD. You have been warned.

Women want a man to be "Handsome, virile, strong, sensitive, attentive, a good provider, someone she can talk to and confide in, good with kids, and can fix things and change flat tires."

Men are looking for women who are "breathing, naked and offering them alcohol." Men want someone whom they can provide for and who is happy to see them when they come home exhausted after a hard day at work. Give us just that and we will happily work 60 hour weeks to make sure the family does not want. A system, by the way, that has existed throughout most of recorded human history.

A man does things. He solves problems, builds things, fixes when when they break, breaks other things and in general gets things done. He has built society. A woman communicates. She talks with others, shares information, builds relationships and encourages man. She is the glue that holds society together. Both jobs are equally important and very different.

END OF STEREOTYPICAL AND SEXIST LANGUAGE.

Men are by default confused and scared when it comes to women. We simply do not understand how women work. When women tell men, "I can do anything you can do just as well!" to a man, he takes her totally at her word, says "Go ahead" and gives no further consideration to the subject. When the woman demands he do the difficult jobs (changing a tire, killing a spider, moving heavy furniture, etc.) that she doesn't want to do, this causes a mental 38-car pileup in our heads. "Wait a minute. You can do this, you just demanded that I let you do this, but now when you find out what that really means, you don't want to do it and want me to do it instead?" To be totally honest, this confuses men to no end.

I refuse to lay the blame on women themselves. The feminism movement, the driving of societal force that drives women out of the home and into the business world because the "Feminist Movement" incessantly tells them, "You can be a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company!", but doesn't tell them about the 60-100 hour work weeks they have to put in to get there. Constant time away from home and family that doesn't leave time for child-rearing, being their for your children and husband, building relationships and keeping society together as a whole. This bill of goods they are being sold conflicts with their base nature and (IMO) contributes to the erraticness of women in general. No, I do not think women should be kept barefoot and pregnant. I fully believe that women should do what they want, either stay at home and raise kids, or climb the corporate ladder. But they're not fully taught the consequences of climbing the corporate ladder.

This attitude and inconsistency by women has laid the groundwork for the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) movement to gain traction. It has also spawned the term Incel as well.

In the end, we have a lot of men, who are lonely, terrified of women and with zero chance of interacting with a woman in an emotionally healthy way. This fear can turn over time to anger. In some, it can lead to violence.

How to solve this? Simply (not easily) walk women back from the edge. Explain to those that don't understand, that women are not in competition with men. I am not saying or implying that woman are to be submissive and obedient to the man. The woman should use her skills and strengths to cover his weak spots, and let the man use his skills and strengths to cover her weak spots. That's how we got society to this point. Why tear it apart now?

Abortion is one of those "third rail" subjects. My personal belief on the subject is no one should have the power to tell a woman how to handle a pregnancy. You can use every contraceptive method simultaneously and still end up pregnant. I understand that an unplanned pregnancy can ruin a single woman's or her families life. I also understand that if she is forced to carry the child to term, the child might end up abused because it was unwanted. I don't have any answers, let alone any good ones. All I can do is encourage the mother to choose the life of the baby.

This article is a month old, but this is the first I've heard of it, since the MSM refuses to cover certain things. NYC Rejects Federal Funds Over Abortion Doctors' ‘Gag Rule’.

It has been federal law for several years now that "federal funds cannot be used to pay for abortions." The Trump administration decided to change the regulations to make sure this is not happening.

There is an economic term called "Fungible." Let's say I have three sources of income. One source has a requirement that those funds cannot be used to purchase tobacco or alcohol products. But all three sources deposit their payments into the same bank account. This means the requirement cannot be enforced, because the money is fungible. Once all of the dollars are inside the account any dollar is indistinguishable from any other dollar. You can't be certain that "this dollar came from the income with restrictions and this one did not." The only way to eliminate this issue is to not mingle the money with the restrictions with money without restrictions. I would have to have a second bank account that receives no other deposits other than the restricted income. Then and only then can the "no tobacco or alcohol" restriction be traceable and enforceable.

I am sure you've heard Planned Parenthood's "Abortion is only 5% of the services we offer." If you count it PP's way, Helping a woman fill out the admissions paperwork, counseling her on this decision, handing her some brochures about family planning, taking her vitals, performing a routine medical exam, performing an ultrasound, carrying out the procedure that aborts the baby, take her to recover in Post-Op and provide grief counceling and then escort her to the vehicle taking her home, that may be one visit, but it's actually ten different billable procedures. While a baby's life was terminated, the actual abortion was "only 10% of the procedures performed on that patient."

This change means, going forward, that abortion clinics must have a separate facility where only abortions are performed. That center has to be profitable on its own and cannot receive any payments from the parent facility. If the provider accepts federal funds and an auditor can trace any amount of money spent on the abortion clinic that originates with the bank account where federal funds are deposited, lots of people will be in big trouble. I assure you, this would be a severe bookkeeping nightmare, not to mention costly for the center. So, most, if not all of the abortion clinics that formerly accepted federal funds are now declining those payments.

Abortion is still legal, the access is still there, but until the next Democrat president gets into office and alters the regulations, it will not be paid for by taxpayer funds. Those clinics will have to stand on their own economic two feet.

All of that being said, how about we let individuals make the choice to help fund those procedures. The federal government has been paying about $260 Million annually to approximately 90 providers that offer abortions as a portion of their services. I am sure if Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Susan Wojcicki, George Soros and Larry Page collectively opened their wallets, they could each pay that kind of money by themselves out of their pocket change. If they decided to split the bill, that's a paltry $44 Million each. They probably spend more on company lunches.

I will never be against letting a person decide what organizations they want to support. If you think abortion is that important, start a Kickstarter, get someone famous to get on TV and plead for donations. What I am against is having someone who wants government funds "donated" through subsidies or for any reason that does not directly return a good or service to the government. No matter what the program, I promise you there is someone who does not want the government freely giving money to any given company or industry. My morals say that person's beliefs and choices should be respected. Just because I want the government to support something does not grant me the power or authority to let the government point a gun at the other person and take his tax money to be spent on programs I like but he abhors, "Concentrated Benefits and Diffused Costs" be damned.

This should terrify you. If it doesn't, you're not paying attention. This Conversation Between A Passenger And An Airline Should Absolutely Terrify You.

I have said for years, "If you want to know what living in a police state is like, go hang out at the airport."

Basically, a JetBlue passenger was able to board her flight by just getting her face scanned. No boarding pass, no ID. A JetBlue camera scanned her face, the data was sent to TSA and her identity was verified. The passenger did not voluntarily give this data, nor permission to be in this program. Of course, she can "opt-out" of the JetBlue program, but her face is already in the databases of the federal government.

I am scared beyond belief over this.

A camera connected to the internet, any camera that can catch your face can send that image to Homeland Security and tag who you are in seconds. "All well and good, but I'm not a criminal. It's not my concern." I have a one-word answer to that. BULLSHIT.

Because if somebody can get into that database, that data can be altered. With access, a person with nasty intentions toward you can either flag you as someone else (say I copy your biometric data into some living super criminal's record), or I copy their criminal record into your file. Either way, every time you get your face scanned, every alarm goes off and police are dispatched immediately to that location. You get arrested, spirited away and it might be a few hours, a few days or never, before (or if) the government figures out that both you and them are the victim of a cruel prank.

A well-timed example just came to my attention: Apple face-recognition blamed by New York teen for false arrest. This shows how such a "confusion" can happen.

Ousmane Bah, 18, said he was arrested at his home in New York in November and charged with stealing from an Apple store. The arrest warrant included a photo that didn’t resemble Bah.

The story here is Mr. Bah lost a non-photo learners permit. Someone else used it while stealing from an Apple store, so the thief's face (his facial recognition profile) ended up on the record of Mr. Bah, who was arrested and charged with the thefts. Mr. Bah is now suing Apple for $1 Billion. I personally think the damages should be twice the entire net profits of the company for the year.

A government with that kind of capability can be nothing but repressive. China with its' Social Credit System is heading there at full speed. Here's some punishments if you cause trouble, like walking your dog without a leash. And if someone gets mis-scanned and their offense drops into your record, you're screwed. I am sure there is no process to get bad incidents off your record. We have already seen that with the "no-fly" list. If your name and data ends up on that list, I am positive that it would be easier to transmute air into gold than to get bad data expunged from your Homeland record.

Think about that.

In my previous post I wrote about how the teachers' unions in Rhode Island are blocking a proposed law that would make it a crime for school personnel to have "intimate relations" with a student over the age of consent but still not a legal adult. I am neither for or against a law like this, I am upset because this is enough of a problem that a law has to be considered to address the issue.

When I shared the link to the article on my FB page, I paraphrased Darth Vader by saying, "I find their lack of morality disturbing." Several times in my life, I have said something off the cuff that did not make sense until later. This has been bothering me all week and I finally was able to articulate it. Here it is:

A person who is in a position of authority, of leadership, a professional in their field, is burdened with the responsibility of a certain code of ethics. The finer points of the ethics differ from profession to profession, but the major shared points are these:

• An obligation to do what your employer tells you to do, within legal boundaries and ones own morality.
• An obligation to your customer, to give them the best good or service you can for the price.
• To do no harm to those in your charge, be they employees you supervise or those you mentor.

What these teachers are doing violates all three of the above core ethics. These "teachers" destroy the trust of the customers (the parents) in their employer (the school system) and the teacher themselves, by having a "teacher's pet" the quality of services to all of the students suffers. The "pet" will have certain benefits and attention, while the others will not. The "do no harm" is the worst of all. This will give the "pet" the impression that if they sleep with whoever is in charge of them, they will have an easier time in life, plus it will provide encouragement to those struggling to try that path to improve their lot in life. I promise you, that never ends well for anybody involved.

In the context of a professional field, a union who wishes to maintain the air of professionalism needs to have a severe form of self-policing. Many other professions already have these mechanisms in place. One story like this puts a negative light on every other member of that profession unless the board of ethics deals swiftly and fairly with the matter. If a violation has been found, then the offender should be disbarred from the profession, no matter where they go. Right now if a teacher is terminated for such an event, they lose their job and their state license to teach. This "teacher" can then move to another state, obtain that state's teaching certificate and be back in front of students.

To know the unions will not uphold a minimum level of ethics and morality in their members, or worse yet actively run interference for their immoral ways, makes me want to never deal professionally with anyone in that profession again.

I have several other articles that I want to get out, however I feel this is the most important of the set.

I came across an article about Rhode Island House Bill 5817. An Act Relating to Criminal Offenses -- Sexual Assaults. This is a bill to make it a Third-Degree Sexual Assault felony to a school employee who engages in sexual relations with an under-18 year-old student. Because under current law, a teacher can legally "get it on" with a 16 or 17 year-old student, due to the legal age of consent for sex in RI is 16.

This is what caused the uproar: James Parisi of the Rhode Island United Federation of Teachers and Patrick Crowley of the Rhode Island National Educators Association registered to testify AGAINST the bill.

Let me say that again. The two biggest unions that represent teachers and other educators in Rhode Island testified their opposition to a potential law that would criminalize a teacher having sex with minor students who have achieved the age of consent (16 years-old).

But don't take my word for it:

Just to check up on the status of the bill, I went to the Rhode Island Legislature's bill tracking website (you have to manually enter "5817" in the Bills field) to check the status of the bill. It is currently set at "Committee recommended measure be held for further study." Which, in Robert's Rules of Order terminology, is to "Table the bill," or put it into a suspended state for reconsideration at an unspecified future meeting. If the bill is not brought back up before the end of the legislative term, it dies a quiet death. In other words, many bills that are tabled die in committee, never to be heard from again.

Teachers unions notoriously donate large sums of money to Democrat legislators. Perhaps a marker or two that accompanied the donations was called in? Just something to think about. This kind of law should be a slam-dunk. What sensible adult would be against the criminalization of an act that a person who has at least a modicum of morals would find abhorrent? To have a person of authority over a minor engage in intimate acts with that minor, no matter how willing the minor is or is not, is a level of depravity that does not sit well with me at all.

I’ve been sitting on this for a few days, just to make sure one more thing didn’t pop up.

Mr. Jussie Smallett is a clear example of Leftist Privilege. I will explain.

Just in case you haven’t heard, Jussie Smallett, a cast member on the TV show Empire, for whatever reason, mailed to himself two threatening letters, then paid two Ethiopian brothers, one of which has a minor role in the same show, to dress up in whiteface, wear MAGA hats and “assault” him, putting a noose around his neck and shouting “This is Trump Country!”

The police took this hate crime seriously, and once the facts came out, Jussie was charged with 16 felonies.

Police Commissioner Eddie Johnson, in a press conference, laid out the case against Mr. Smallett point by point when charges were filed, kind of like when James Comey laid out the case against Hillary on July 5th, 2016. Except Commissioner Johnson did not hamstring the prosecution like Comey did.

Then, last week, Kim Foxx, the State attorney “in charge” of the case, drops all charges against Mr. Smallett. Both Police Commissioner Johnson and Mayor Rahm Emanuel were not told about the dismissal. They saw it on the news. So, Commissioner Johnson and Mayor Rahm Emanuel held a joint press conference, and both were plainly upset about this turn of events. Mayor Emanuel stating that Mr. Smallett should reimburse the city for all of the costs of the investigation.

Then we find out Ms. Foxx had an ex parte conversation with Smallett’s family. Then we also find out that Ms. Foxx also received a phone call from Tina Tchen, the former Chief of Staff for Michelle Obama about the case. Because of this, Ms. Foxx recused herself from the case due to an appearance of impropriety. Except that she didn’t really recuse herself, because she’s the one who made the decision to drop the charges.

I want to be clear, there is no evidence of this, this is the wandering of my own mind. Why would Ms. Tchen contact Ms. Foxx, if not at the behest of Ms. Obama? This does not pass the smell test.

All-in-all, what we have here is a clear case of Leftist Privilege. Because Mr. Smallett faked a hate crime that blamed Trump supporters, gets a pass on sixteen felonies. Depending on how many he would have been convicted on and how they were stacked, Mr. Smallett could have spent up to 64 years in jail. In reality, it probably would have been a total of 18-24 months.

One last twist, the other day, Mayor Emanuel totally reversed his position, now blaming the election of President Trump as being a motivating factor in Mr. Smallett perpetuating this “hate crime” upon himself.

The good news is, this is a long way from being over.

First of all, remember the threating letters Mr. Smallett mailed to himself? Yeah, sending threats through the U.S. Mail is a federal offense, not under the control of Ms. Foxx. Also, Ms. Foxx is now in her own vat of hot water, the Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association issued an extended statement slamming Ms. Foxx for her actions.

Prosecutors must be held to the highest standard of legal ethics in the pursuit of justice. The actions of the Cook County State’s Attorney have fallen woefully short of this expectation. Through the repeated misleading and deceptive statements to the public on Illinois law and circumstances surrounding the Smollett dismissal, the State’s Attorney has failed in her most fundamental ethical obligations to the public. The IPBA condemns these actions.

My take on all this? If the state charges had gone through, the federal charges would probably not been pressed. Now they most likely will, and upon conviction, the maximum penalty of 5 years will be applied. Ms. Foxx will likely never appear in a courtroom again, except as a defendant. She should be disbarred from the legal profession entirely.

This is what happens when you don’t do the right thing. You get your ass barbecued by the dragon before he eats you alive.

Okay folks, the Leftist groupthink is out of hand even more than usual. Leftists are now arguing about skin color. Will Smith catches backlash for colorism after being cast as Venus and Serena Williams' father.

First of all, Will Smith was offered and accepted a job. The Producers of this film thought he is the best "bang-for-the-buck." So if you want to accuse someone of "colorism" you might want to look at the director, producers and casting staff first.

Second, does this fall under the banner of "Black enough?" Seriously, you inbred nimrods are openly discriminating against a man, not for his politics, not for his character, not for his race but the shade of his skin. At least you can pick on something he has some control over.

Not too long ago, there was fan talk about Idris Elba being the next James Bond when Daniel Craig steps away from the role. Even though Ian Fleming described (and drew) Bond as a White man of Scottish descent, l I personally have no issue with it. If the producers think Elba would bring in more revenue than their second pick. However, recent events have shown that a "drastic recasting" of hit films does not translate into profits *cough*Ghostbusters* *cough*Oceans Eight*.

How can we move past racism (which the Leftists demand we do) when those same Leftists demanding equality are discriminating against a man over the shade of his skin? This is beyond the pale. Even my loquacious vocabulary lacks the words to adequately describe the idiocy going on here.

As opposed to the writing on the wall...

Before I get into this, I want to point out and make very clear, this is the kind of crap that happens when government has too much power. When an administrator or committee gets it into their head about something, a citizen, either inadvertently or on purpose, becomes a target of the government. The government, with its' unlimited resources, can perpetually persecute a citizen until that citizen either capitulates or is destroyed.

If you ever think for a second that Mr. Phillips "had this coming," I pray that you never find out what it's like to have the forces of the government aimed at you, because I promise you will not be so enthusiastic about unlimited governmental power when you are its' target.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, might be nearing the end of his journey, with a modestly happy ending. I have written about this before, link 1, link 2, link 3.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has abandoned the second lawsuit against Mr. Phillips, now that information of exactly how hostile some of the members of the Commission were towards Mr. Phillips.

In this transcript of a hearing for the CCRC, Diann Rice said this (Page 11, line 25 to Page 12 line 10),

I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be -- I mean, we -- we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to -- to use their religion to hurt others. So that's just my personal point of view.

I cannot disagree that religion has been the vehicle for people with prejudices to force others to do things they didn't want to do. But freedom of religion? I always thought that freedom of religion meant religions (or the lack thereof) could exist side-by-side without warring against each other. I don't know about Ms. Rice, but my history books talk about the Holocaust as the efforts of a secular leader (and a Socialist) of a country trying to exterminate a particular religion? By the way, this was uttered after SCOTUS' 7-2 ruling in favor of Mr. Phillips.

So, Colorado has surrendered on their effort to destroy Mr. Phillips. In return, Mr. Phillips has ceased his lawsuit against every member of the CCRC, the Attorney General and the Governor. Mr. Phillips comes out on the short end of the stick here, as each side will pay their own legal fees. This means Mr. Phillips has to contend with lower sales because of the persecution by the government and he now likely has tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees he must pay off.

Just in case you never read the facts about this, Mr. Phillips refused to create a custom cake for a same-sex couple for their wedding and a transgender woman celebrating the anniversary of her change. Mr. Phillips offered to sell them cakes that were in stock and offered the names of other bakeries that would be more amenable to their needs concerning custom cakes. Mr. Phillips also doesn't do Halloween cakes and a few others, just in case you weren't clear that all of those things, in his opinion, go against his religious beliefs.

I've been hearing a lot of PSA's from a website known as End Family Fire [https://endfamilyfire.org/] and I went to take a look at it the other day. The radio PSA’s are a (simulated?) 911 call where the parent is screaming about “the gun was loaded.” I am sure this is meant to stimulate a parent’s worst fears, that of their child being seriously injured or dead. Looking at the site, I am amazed by several things, first of all it actually sounds reasonable. But if you excuse the pun that's a little disarming and that's probably intentional. They have three main points.

Their points are,

• Eight children are wounded or killed every day in unintentional shootings.
• You should lock your firearm with a trigger or breach lock, keeping the ammunition separate from the weapon, and;
• Talk to your children about gun safety.

I will now address these point by point.

Eight Children a Day.

My stats, provided by WISQARS (from the CDC) shows in 2017, the last year for data, for the 0-17 age range (because 18 and 19 year-old people are ADULTS and not children) there were 6,634 injuries by “Unintentional BB/Pellet or gunshot” (0.1% of all unintentional injuries and #20 on the list) and 69 deaths, (1.6% of all deaths and #10 on the list).

According to my math, this works out to 18.3 per day. To cut it to the 8 a day, they would have to only count 2,851 of those non-fatal injuries. To put that into perspective, for every child which received a non-fatal shooting injury, there’s 9 who were injured in an “unintentional pedestrian” event, or 41 for getting hurt on a bicycle.

I will stipulate their stats are accurate because I could not separate the BB gun and firearm injuries. Are they preventable? I can agree to that. My problem with them, as detailed below, actually goes to fixing the problem, not a nebulous “raising awareness.”

Storing the weapon.

Let me specify that I am talking only about weapons meant for immediate use in a home invasion or other such event. Most weapons in the home will be stored unloaded. Ammunition may or may not be near by. The military term for immediate use is “Ready Five,” meaning an aircraft sits on the tarmac (or carrier deck) fully fueled, armed, with crew nearby and can launch in five minutes or less from the order to launch.

In 99% of the cases and reasons for having a loaded firearm easily accessible in the first place is to return fire in case of a home invasion. For as long as I have been a member of the NRA (30 years now) every month I got a magazine (until I went digital) and one page was called The Armed Citizen. The page had about a dozen synopsis' of local news stories where people used their firearm to defend friends and family from Bad People. That means I've been sent about 4,300 of these news articles. The chance of you having your home broken into while you're home is going to be very small. If it does happen, there is a very high chance of serious injury or death happening to you.

End Family Fire suggests that you store your firearm and your ammunition separately. The weapon should also have a trigger or breech lock. For those who are interested in home self-defense this seriously hampers the ability of the homeowner to quickly respond. It would take a significant amount of time (1-2 minutes) to bring the weapon to a usable condition when you only have 10-15 seconds to grab the weapon and engage the invaders. In situations like this, seconds literally do count and 1-2 minutes is too long. You’re dead.

Now, a pin-coded safe I would consider to be superior to a trigger/breech lock, as the weapon could be stored in Condition Two (loaded magazine in the weapon, no round in the chamber), quickly retrieved, brought to ready and used. Not to mention that in a stressful situation, the first thing to go is fine motor skills. Locating and inserting the correct key in a lock, or spinning small tumblers to the correct combination would be a lot harder and time consuming.

Talk with your kids.

This is where End Family Fire totally fails. Okay, “talk with the kids.” What should you say? I’m sure this kind of talk would be up there with “the birds and the bees” discussion. It would have been great if there was a tip sheet with points for the parent to consider, research and discuss with their kids. But there’s nothing to be found.

When my son was a preschooler, he would come and visit me in the garage when I was re-loading ammunition or maintaining my weapons. I had printed a sign that was at his eye level and these were the first words he learned to read. Those words were the four firearm safety laws. He had to recite them every time he came out to see me.

• A firearm is always loaded.
• Never point a firearm at something that you do not want to destroy.
• Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
• Always be sure of your target and what is behind it.

The only materials End Family Fire has are PSA’s and brochures that “raise awareness” but do nothing to address the issue.

If you really want to stop incidents like this, there are two simple and easy things to do. Defang the serpent and teach them age appropriate things to do when they find a firearm.

Defang the serpent.

This one requires some of your time. During your talk with your kids, let them know you will tell them anything they want to know about firearms, within their ability to comprehend of course. If they can inspect (unloaded) firearms under your direct supervision, pretty much any time they want, those firearms lose their allure and the kids lose their curiosity about them.

Age appropriate training.

The Eddie Eagle program, developed by the NRA 30 years ago teaches pre-school and elementary kids four simple steps on what to do when they find a firearm.

• STOP!
• DON’T TOUCH!
• LEAVE THE AREA!
• TELL AN ADULT!

It doesn’t confuse kids about firearms being “bad,” or they might “go off” or anything like that. Don’t touch it, get away from it (and the person holding it) and tell an adult. This program gives children clear and simple actions that they can easily remember, articulate and perform. It really can’t be any simpler than that. This is what you should talk about with your kids.

As I alluded to in the title of this post, the Liberal way to address this issue is to “raise awareness” among adults by inducing panic and fear, then abandon the parents after telling them they need to "talk with their kids," but not knowing what to say or cover. Which, unfortunately, will most likely be the wrong thing.

The Conservative way to address this issue is to defang the serpent by satisfying the kid’s curiosity so they don’t go behind your back to find and handle the firearms unsupervised, then give them clear and simple actions to do if they find a gun, like when playing at a friend’s house who then pulls out their parents gun.

Instill fear and panic in parents, or teach the children to almost eliminate the problem in the first place. Which do you think you would (or should) choose?

I realize that I have this under "Dumb Laws," however the law it self isn't dumb, it's this ruling.

So the latest monstrosity of absurdity has come to pass: Judge tosses North Carolina mandatory voter ID amendment citing gerrymandering.

Let me break this down so it somewhat is understandable. To be clear, this is nowhere near the four corners of the law.

1. Judge rules that a voter ID law is invalid.

2. The reason why the constitutional amendment (which was voted for overwhelmingly by the people of NC) is invalid is because the General Assembly is "illegally constituted."

3. The General Assembly is illegal because "[The] General Assembly does not represent the people of North Carolina and is therefore not empowered to pass legislation that would amend the state’s constitution."

To show I am not making this crap up, here is the court's ruling.

From my understanding, the Republican district drawings were based on equal population and did not consider race. To me, this is how it should be done. Put a pin in the map where every household resides, with a number on the pin to show how many people the census says live there. Then draw districts that are compact and have no "bulges" or noticeably protruding sections. Below is the US Congressional districts for NC. I have several issues with this map, notably the "intrusions" from 3 into 1, 13 into 6 and 10 into 11. District 4 seems custom made for the Democrat that currently holds that seat.

The State House and Senate districts also some some of the same characteristics as the above map. You can see them all here.

But you see, if this judges ruling is not overturned, I have to ask this question:

"If the General Assembly is illegally constituted to the point that it cannot propose amendments to the state constitution, does it not also follow that it cannot make any laws?"

A legislature is like a pregnancy: You are either pregnant, or you are not, there is no middle ground. Ask Schrödinger. If you are illegally constituted enough that you cannot carry out that part of their duties, (propose amendments to the state constitution) then they cannot carry out ANY of their duties under the state constitution.

This is the kind of consequences that happen when judges step outside of the four corners of the law. Properly done, the lawsuit should have tried to overturn the amendment based on the process that put it into place. Did the General Assembly vote to propose the amendment in accordance with state law and the methods of the respective houses? Yes. Did the voters approve of the amendment in accordance with the laws in place at the time of the referendum? Yes. In which case, the amendment is legal and the Plaintiffs are barking up the wrong tree. The legality of the representation of the districts and their makeups are another issue entirely and must be addressed separately from the first question.

A few years ago, the Panera Bread Company thought they would try a socialist experiment in a capitalist environment. Panera CEO Ron Shaich seems to have coined a new phrase for Socialism, namely "Conscious capitalism." He created Panera Cares, basically a Panera store that operated off of the Marxist phrase, ”From each according to their means, to each according to their needs.” The idea was the menu had suggested prices. If you could pay more, you were asked to. If you couldn’t afford to pay, you were asked to pay what you could. The experiment failed with the closing of the last store on February 15th.

What Panera (and Marx) failed to consider was the “enlightened self-interest” of people. It is a cornerstone of the human condition to pay as little as possible for anything, be it time, energy or financial resources.

When you have a set price for a good or service, people decide to buy on their judgement of, “is what I am getting worth what I am paying for it?” If a customer decides that the product isn’t worth what they have to pay for it, they don’t buy it. If you have no set price, I would be surprised if anyone paid anywhere close to the “suggested” price, let alone more. Most people would pay something, just out of social guilt or wanting to be fair. I would be very surprised if more than 5% of the customers paid more than the suggested price.

The problems with this concept were easily predictable and numerous, right from the start. The stores needed people with additional means to pay for those who didn’t have the means to normally eat there. So you have someone who is well dressed and groomed, while at the next table is a homeless person who was more concerned with making it to the next sunrise than hygiene. This made both people uncomfortable. One person didn’t want to eat sitting next to someone who smelled like a dumpster in the Summertime, while said smelly person didn’t want their odor (and things) intruding on the other person. Then you had drug use in the bathrooms, or people who didn’t want to use the toilet, so they did their business on the floor and so on.

By the time the last one closed, the homeless were prohibited from eating there more than a “couple times a week” and the only ones attending were starving college students. The revenue of these stores never got above about 70% of the expenses, so they were big money holes.

Again, the basic flaw in the plan should have been easily predictable to anyone who has a faint idea of how humans operate.

Socialism inevitably comes down to the muzzle of a gun because only the most naïve will willingly surrender the fruits of their labor to those who will not likewise produce. The major Communist states (Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea and more) had to convince its citizens on a daily basis that they were living in a “workers paradise.” And if you didn’t believe them, they either shot you or starved you to death.

Socialism will never work for any length of time on its own accord. It must be constantly pushed forward by those forced to live under the system, with the muzzle of a gun in their back to “inspire” them to keep pushing.

With two notable major media stories going south (for the MSM) it only shows their lack of integrity and willingness to sacrifice any ideal (or person) on the altar of "DESTROY TRUMP."

First, we have the Nicholas Sandmann incident, where he and his fellow Covington High School classmates were wearing MAGA hats after a pro-life rally. Sandmann calmly stood his ground as he was approached and berated. The media, taking out-of-context video segments from a larger and continuous video that did show the context, vilified Sandmann and his classmates as the instigators and aggressors in the incident, when the opposite is true when you see the interaction in context. The MSM's insistent efforts to provide a distorted attack on this young man, and Trump by extension, has showed me their disgust on anyone who is even remotely a Trump supporter.

This has now come to bite them in the ass.

Through legal representation, Sandmann is currently in the process of suing the Washington Post (I like G. Gordon Libby's term for them, the Washington COM-Post) for $250 Million in damages. I hope he wins, because hopefully it will scare the MSM away from the "being first to break the news," to "let's take a day or two to get it right" kind of journalism.

The second story encompasses the phony "hate crimes," the most recent of which involves Jussie Smollett. It starts off bad, with someone allegedly at Jussie's direction committing a federal felony (sending threats through the US mail is a federal crime under 18 U.S. Code § 876), then Jussie paying two men to "attack" him, then lying about it to the police. For his efforts, Jussie has been charged with "disorderly conduct for filing a false police report," a Class-4 felony (maximum 18 months in a state facility), As soon as the FBI gets through with their investigation, Jussie may face to to 10 years in the federal system.

All the way up 5 minutes before the Chicago DA announced the charges against Jussie, the MSM was adamant that he was "a victim of a vicious and heinous hate crime."

Compared to the "hate crime" hoaxes, the true crimes where stereotypical hate is involved are invisible. Has there been any real, documented assaults where the victims racial or sexual preferences played a significant reason for the attack? I can think of none. If you know of any, please comment them below and I will update this post with them.

When I say hate in the context of the title of this article, I am not being hyperbolic, nor am I exaggerating. Let me explain why.

An adage I follow is "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer." When Air America was on the air, I listened to it. In small doses, mind you, but I did regularly tune into that radio station. A couple of weeks ago, I added The Young Turks into my podcast list. I listened for an hour for three consecutive days, and I haven't activated my podcast app since, I was so revolted by the hate, the ignorance, the distorted mindset and the vitriol that spewed from my speakers. Two "events" came to mind as I was thinking about this post.

The first was one of TYT called Mitch McConnell "evil." I don't know about you, but "evil" implies a lot of things. When Harry Reid was the Senate Majority Leader of the Senate, I can hardly think of a subject or stance I could find common ground with him. I think Reid was a devious, underhanded, unscrupulous, kind of guy, but I would stop well before I would use the term "evil" with Senator Reid. But TYT had no problem using it. By applying that label to someone who only has a political or philosophical difference with you, that cheapens the value of the word. I'm sure that we can all agree that people like Adolph Hitler, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and a few others really are "evil." When you throw Mitch McConnell into that group, you actually make the others sound 'not so bad.'

This is the second one. I actually found a video of it:

It should be understood that Aero Mexico wouldn't show someone who said no, because that would undercut their ad. In fact, there were 4 individuals and one couple asked at the beginning. The two people that expressed interest, one wasn't asked if they would go to Mexico. He didn't explicitly say "yes," it was an implied "yes" because he asked if his wife could go. The second person to imply a yes put a condition on it, "if there were Taco Bell's on street corners down there." I don't know if this gentleman knows there is very little in common with real Mexican food and what's on a Taco Bell menu. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he knows there are no Taco Bells south of the border. To say what he said, knowing there are none down there I can only interpret as a big "screw you" to anyone who believed he would go there.

I am more concerned with how Mark Thompson, Helen Hong and Brett Erlich (L to R, as they sat facing the camera) spoke of and judged these people. Mark said, "These people don't have passports, they're not going to the next state over where Bubba lives." While Helen said, "Those people live within a 20 mile radius from where they were born." Later on, she mocks them (in a forced Southern accent), "The only thing I love more than my racism is discounts." I couldn't take it after, "I've been to Mexico and the best thing about Mexico is those people are not there."

This is not funny, this is not political commentary, this is an intentional and repeated mocking of people who live in "flyover country" and who don't agree with the talking heads.

Quite frankly, it's this attitude and mindset that sickens me. This is what I fight against, the belief that these elitists know better for other people, even better than the people know themselves. I am all for personal choice and personal responsibility of accepting the consequences of their choices. Why Leftists can't accept that, I guess I will never know.

To paraphrase Darth Vader, "The idiocy is strong in this one."

The Hawaii State Legislature is considering H.B. 1509, introduced by three legislators, to increase the minimum age required to legally buy cigarettes, until you have to be at least 100 years old. I did not mistype that. One hundred years old. IF enacted (and it's a pretty big IF), the legal age to buy cigarettes would jump to 30 on 1/1/2020, then every subsequent year it would jump to 40, 50, 60 years, then all the way to 100.

Now let me explain to you the Aircraft Carrier-sized holes in this law:

• This only affects the sales of cigarettes from stores.
• It does not regulate possession.
• It only restricts cigarettes, not pipes, cigars and so on.

So, I can see 60 year old people profiteering (because the only state law on profiteering relates to gasoline; I checked) by buying cartons of cigarettes and selling to their family and friends. I can see vacationers flying in with multiple cartons to sell. I can see family and friends on the Mainland Fedexing cartons. Then you have all of the people just switching over to the other forms of tobacco usage to keep their nicotine levels up.

Then we will also have the black-market running a healthy profit. My wife's grandfather was a stevedore and she has told me some stories about him. In-line with this, I found the Hawaiian Libertarian, and specifically this post: The Illusionary Rule of Law.

The long-term effects of this are numerous. Another law that will have a drastic negative effect primarily on small businesses, a big boost in sales (and profits) for the already rampant black market, an exploding gray market, a drastic fall off in state revenues from the "sin tax" on cigarettes, a further disregard for the rule of law by the people, do I really need to go on?

This clearly illustrates the point of "Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. Just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong."

Last week, Governor Mario Cuomo signed into law a bill from the New York State Legislature implementing what he calls "a full Roe v. Wade". I find this admiring and reprehensible at the same time I find this admirable because I believe that this is about how the issue of abortion should be settled. I mean this should be a state level issue that is voted upon by either the representatives of the people in that states legislature or by a referendum of the people directly.

I find this method far preferable to the method of how we arrived at Roe v. Wade. Just in case you don’t know, Roe v. Wade is the 1973 landmark Supreme Court case that legalized abortion on demand throughout the United States. It was a decision for one case of one woman who wanted an abortion and couldn't get it because the laws in her state made the practice illegal. The matter was decided by nine judges who were not elected by the people and “by precedent” forced upon all 50 states.

I support New York's action to do this legislatively because I think each state should, either through the legislature or by popular referendum, decide as a state on passionate issues like this. So while New York may pass something like this, Nebraska may not and it should be perfectly fine either way. I support this because this is an ideology consistent with my position that the states are actual independent countries and need to decide internal issues such as this on their own and not have the federal government, which is supposed to regulate the states and not the actions of the people in the states. So I applaud New York for taking such a step.

I personally find the the action of aborting a child to be reprehensible, spiritually, morally  and ethically. I can and do moderate my position because I do not have the power and I do not want the power to regulate a woman's body or any aspect of any other person’s life. I will always advocate for the woman to deliver the child, however in the end, that decision (and the karmic debt) is hers to bear alone.

When you look at the New York abortion bill, the particulars of it are a total abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy for any reason. Which means that pretty much as long as the baby is not in the process of coming out on their own (i.e. the mother is in labor), the mother can decide to destroy the child.

There are three general exceptions under which most people agree that abortion is acceptable. They are:

• In cases of rape or incest;
• For the life of the mother;
• The child would be malformed (a known severe mental, developmental or physical birth defect)

According to Gallup, public support is in the majority for an abortion in the first trimester if one of those conditions are met. Down Syndrome is at 49% (and within the margin of error), but “for any reason” is at 45%.

In the same poll, the people were asked the same questions about the third trimester, respondents still gave a majority support for life of the mother and rape or incest. Everything else dropped under 50%, with “for any reason” at the bottom at 20%.

While a proper full term white pregnancy is 40 weeks, medical technology today deliver a baby as young as 25 weeks with a 50% chance of survival. That baby will have many lifelong medical conditions because it is not fully developed. A child can be delivered at 27 weeks (which is seven months, the beginning of the third trimester) with a 90% chance of survival and very little if any medical intervention or life-long medical issues.

The current dividing line between “fetus” and “child” is, “The child is ‘completely expelled’ from the mother” and one of these conditions are met:

• Breathes;
• Has a heartbeat;
• Pulsation of the umbilical cord;
• Voluntary muscle movement.

Which leads us to the “late term” or “partial-birth” abortions. I'm sorry to be gruesome here, but in a partial birth abortion, the doctor induces labor and brings the baby out feet first, leaving the head still inside the vaginal canal (so “it” still meets the first condition above and is legally a fetus and not a child). While the head is still within the mother the doctor pierces the back of the “fetuses” skull to scramble and destroy the brain, then removes the brains through a suction tube.

As of this moment, in the state of New York, that is perfectly legal, all the way up to the second before the child wants to come out on their own.

I now have a question, very serious question, because this has happened at least once that I can find. If, during the initial stages of a partial-birth abortion, the “fetus” pops out all the way, be it through its’ own random movements or the doctor flubbing it, could the procedure continue and the “clump of cells,” now a child is terminated? I guess in New York State, the answer is “yes.” Now, do the people of New York agree with this law? I don't know. I do know we will find out during the next state election cycle when the legislators who voted for it are either ejected from, or returned to office

Writing this article wounded my soul. My soul cries out against the action while my mind praises the process it was arrived at. This has been one of the hardest articles I have ever had to write and I’m angry and sorry it had to be written in the first place.

No one is blameless in this matter. I blame the feckless Republicans of the 115th Congress that couldn't carry out their Constitutional duty to create an annual budget, I blame the 116th House for being stubborn and obstructionist because Trump is breathing, and I blame Trump for trying to uphold the duties of his office and protecting our national security.

Now that the shutdown has entered its' 31st day, unless you read past the headlines of "TRUMP REFUSES TO SIGN BUDGET," you won't see that Trump has extended multiple compromises to Nancy Pelosi, all of which have been refused. He has offered to reduce the amount of funding he has asked for, as well as temporary protections for DREAMers (which was an Unconstitutional program by Obama, BTW).

So now I have to ask, "Who are the real obstructionists here?" Trump is asking for physical barriers along "high priority sections" of the border, and what he is asking for is, compared to the totality of the federal budget, a "rounding error." Look at it this way: $5 Billion is 0.5% of the deficit, and 0.12% of the total budget.

I respect both President Trump and Obstructionist Pelosi (I'm using that title from now on instead of "Speaker") for making their respective stands for what they think is right and important. They are also teaching most every American exactly how much they "need" the federal government. Yes, many families are affected (including my own and those close to me) by the restriction of federal government operations. The good news is, many will learn just how much they (don't) need the government. In reality, the longer this shutdown goes on, more and more Democrat voters will realize they can get along just fine and maybe better without government assistance. When those people discover this, they have a good chance of leaving the Democrats.

I also found out while writing this post that after 30 days (which was yesterday), the government can permanently lay off furloughed workers through a Reduction In Force (RIF) program. Why is this critical? Because the bureaucrats who are interfering with President Trump from advancing his agenda aren't in the office screwing things up.

This article from The Daily Caller from a "Senior Trump official" says the following:

Process is what we serve, process keeps us safe, process is our core value. It takes a lot of people to maintain the process. Process provides jobs. In fact, there are process experts and certified process managers who protect the process. Then there are the 5 percent with moxie (career managers). At any given time they can change, clarify or add to the process — even to distort or block policy counsel for the president.

Saboteurs peddling opinion as research, tasking their staff on pet projects or pitching wasteful grants to their friends. Most of my career colleagues actively work against the president’s agenda. This means I typically spend about 15 percent of my time on the president’s agenda and 85 percent of my time trying to stop sabotage, and we have no power to get rid of them. Until the shutdown.

Due to the lack of funding, many federal agencies are now operating more effectively from the top down on a fraction of their workforce, with only select essential personnel serving national security tasks. One might think this is how government should function, but bureaucracies operate from the bottom up — a collective of self-generated ideas. Ideas become initiatives, formalize into offices, they seek funds from Congress and become bureaus or sub-agencies, and maybe one day grow to be their own independent agency, like ours. The nature of a big administrative bureaucracy is to grow to serve itself. I watch it and fight it daily. [Emphasis mine]

In other words, the vast majority of "the swamp" that have interfered with Trumps agenda has been out of the office for the past month. And thanks to Obstructionist Pelosi, most of them are now gone permanently. Pelosi has just drained the swamp for Trump by being stupid and goadable.

In the long term, "Obstructionist Pelosi" is hurting her own power base and her desire of the expanding power of government more than helping it. So, keep holding out Nancy, you'll only destroy any chance the House will remain Democrat or win the White House in 2020.

Well, that didn't take long.

On the first day after being sworn in to office, the House of Representatives for the 116th Congress has already spewed forth as how Shakespeare said it in Macbeth, "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." I say that because with a Republican controlled Senate, even if the House passes these bills, they will go to the Senate and be ignored. Kind of like when Harry Reid sat on 420 bills passed by the House.

So, here we go:

"For the People Act", a mishmash of House procedural rules and moves to "protect" the Mueller investigation and the ACA.

Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA), who has been elected in three different Congressional districts (not at the same time, of course, but you never know) sponsored H.Res. 13, Articles of Impeachment on President Trump. The heinous crime? Firing Comey, and thus "Obstruction of Justice."

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) (an admitted Socialist to the Left of Bernie and Trotsky) wants to introduce a "Green New Deal" that would wreak havoc on our economy, and finance it through a doubling of the income tax on our highest wage earners. Which, if you look at things like the Laffer Curve or even history, where you see high tax rates actually curtail government tax income.

My own Congresscritter, Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN) submitted bill H.J.Res.7 to eliminate the Electoral College. This truly would introduce the Tyranny of the Majority because almost half of the population are concentrated in cities, most of which are Democratically controlled.

I will be consistent and support Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) on her stance when she refused to take her oath on a Bible. She is the only person in the Senate to not identify as a member of a religion. Instead, she took her oath of office on a copy of the Constitution. I can support that. Taking an oath on a book you don't believe the teachings of is not an oath. It would be like taking an oath on the Yellow Pages. When you do take an oath on a book, for that oath to be binding, you need to respect and try to live by the words in the book.

I do have an issue with her doing that while tacitly supporting violent groups with a "wink-and-a-nod." Here is a 2002 email from her "community organizing" days:

“When AAPJ [Arizona Alliance for Peaceful Justice] attended May Day (sponsored by the Phoenix Anarchist Coalition), we knew that their guidelines differ from ours,” Sinema emailed a fellow protester. “They are okay with weapons and property destruction in some instances, and so those of us who chose to attend the event knew that it would be inappropriate to ask someone to not destroy property or to carry a weapon.” [Square brackets mine]

Knowingly letting people who have no problem with carrying weapons and causing property damage to "a peaceful protest" is kind of counter productive, don't you think? Unless you secretly agree with their methods and/or objectives. Like I said, "a-wink-and-a-nod." Peaceful and passive protestors can be ignored. Protesters willing to break property and bust a few heads aren't so easy to ignore.

And there you have it. A Sanitarium truly run by the Inmates.

I am beginning to think that the major problem is not excessive government, rather SJW-led corporations. We already know about Facebook, Twitter, et.al., banning people whose political views don't agree with management. And in ideas developed through Operation Choke Point, the financial strangling of people who have jobs or businesses deemed "undesireable" by the government. The latest effort to silence "undesireables" has resulted in accounts for Carl “Sargon of Akkad” Benjamin, James Allsup, and Milo Yiannopoulos being banned from Patreon.

The result of this is Dave Rubin and Jordan B. Peterson leaving Patreon (where they both derive a substantial portion of their income) and starting their own payment service. This, I believe could be the start of something that's been looming on the horizon, namely a "Conservative economy."

In 1986, Rupert Murdoch founded Fox Broadcasting Company. Murdoch did this because he saw the "Big Four" (ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN) being unabashedly Liberal in their reporting and views. So, Fox has made a serious effort to present both sides of an issue. They are clearly Conservative, however they do have real Liberals on their panels and they are allowed to voice their opinion. If there are any non-Leftists on panels on the other four, they are milquetoast centrists who couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag and are frequently shouted down. Fox became very popular very quickly because of a simple advertising strategy: "We're Not Them." By being a voice different from the Big Four, FOX attracted almost half of the country because up until then, the needs of that half of the country were not being met.

Now we are starting to see alternative platforms crop up. I discovered MeWe a couple weeks ago. It's a Facebook competitor who openly states they don't collect your information to "provide you with targeted ads." We anxiously await the Ruben/Peterson alliance (whatever it's name will be), and there are other websites and services who tell you, "We're Not Them."

I like the idea of platforms being platforms and not arbiters of what is good and proper speech.

Social Justice Warriors, I don't know why, seem to lack a basic grasp of reality and observational powers. Combined with their recursive thinking that "if they want it badly enough, it will come true," if they can get their "inclusive" agenda, the result will be staggering numbers of dead and disabled people. This will also lead in directions that *I* see, but obviously they don't.

I speak specifically about this article, Making U.S. Fire Departments More Diverse and Inclusive by Corinne Bendersky.

She starts with the first paragraph:

Picture a typical firefighter. Who comes to mind? If you imagined a white man, that’s understandable: 96% of U.S. career firefighters are men, and 82% are white. This homogeneity is striking, especially when you compare it to the U.S. military, which is 85% men and 60% white, and local police forces, which are 88% men and 73% white.

To which my response is, "Aaannnnnnnnndd?" Because there are two distinct factors in play here, both conveniently ignored by the author. They are 1) the prospective firefighter must apply for the position (they must want to do it) and 2) there is a set of physical and mental standards that must be met to adequately and safely perform the job at hand. Those physical requirements, by the way, are written in blood. The blood of those who could not physically perform the job and those killed or disabled because the first person could not do the job.

In 2015, I wrote about the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force in my article, Women in Combat. Included in my post was the article Sergeant Major Speaks Out On Women In Combat.

Sergeant Major Justin Lehew, who was part of the GCEITF and wanted it to succeed, had this to say:

With our limited manpower we cannot afford to not train everyone to the best of their abilities. This was as stacked as a unit could get with the best Marines to give it a 100 percent success rate as we possibly could. End result? The best women in The GCEITF as a group in regard to infantry operations were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study. They are slower on all accounts in almost every technical and tactical aspect and physically weaker in every aspect across the range of military operations. [emphasis mine]

The report sent to the Secretary of the Navy had this to say, (page 79):

1. The female Marines integrated into the closed MOS units demonstrated that they are capable of performing the physically demanding tasks, but not necessarily at the same level as their male counterparts in terms of performance, fatigue, workload, or cohesion.
2. Integrated units, compared with all-male units, showed degradations in the time to complete tasks, move under load, and achieve timely effects on target. The size of the differences observed between units and tasks varied widely. The more telling aspect of the comparisons is the cumulative impacts. The pace, timing, and accuracy of any singular task is not necessarily important, but taken together, and in the context of actual combat operations, the cumulative differences can lead to substantial effects on the unit, and the unit’s ability to accomplish the mission.
3. Gender and MOS type are the best predictors of occupational injuries. In particular, we found that females are more likely to incur occupational injuries, resulting in reduced readiness compared to their male counterparts. Males, on the other hand, are more likely to incur non-occupational injuries. Additionally, Marines in vehicle MOSs tended to have lower injury rates than those in MOSs that march (i.e., foot mobile) or Artillery MOSs.

Let me spell this out for you: The best female Marine is outperformed by 19 of 20 male Marines. In combat, the slower unit will likely lose in a fight. Integrated units are slower than non-integrated units. This ends only one way: more flag-draped coffins than there should have been.

How does this apply here? I can't say this enough: In physically demanding jobs where lives are on the line, the physical standards to those jobs are written in the blood of those who didn't meet those standards. If a firefighter cannot haul a downed fellow firefighter (or policeman, oil rig worker, et.al.) to safety in time, both will die.

Just in case, if you're reading "women can't be firefighters/Marines/Whatever," you're stupid. If a woman can meet the physical standard (not the women's standard, the same standard as men) and wants to work in that job, I have no problem with it. My day job consists of me routinely loading 40 and 50 pound bulky equipment boxes into and out of my work van. Out of the 40 technicians in my group, 3-4 are female. They can do the job and I don't have a problem with it.

To force gender equality in jobs like this will end very badly. But here's a worse dimension.

About 1975, I read a book, This Perfect Day by Ira Levin. It's the story about a dystopian society, where the computer "Unicomp" (Universal Computer) made most of your life decisions for you. I remember this passage quite clearly, just not word for word. The scene was where Chip (his actual name was Li XE 4827143) was lamenting that Uni had decided that he was to be a molecular geneticist when he really wanted to be something else, I forget what.

"Chip," the counselor said, "You know Uni always makes the best decisions, right? Uni has read all of your test scores and your teachers' notes about you to select the best possible work for you. Can you imagine if everyone wanted to be an actor but no one wanted to work in a crematorium?"

I clearly see that, not too far into the future, if SJW's can force this "gender equality" into any job (not just the physically demanding ones) then not too long after that, you won't get a choice about what you do to earn a living. You will be told what to do and that's that. Think about this: If the job openings for a given job type are to "equally represent" all racial and gender groups, how is that fire department going to find a mixed race Black/Asian lesbian that wants to be a firefighter? Because, you know, if a position requires that specific racial/sexual demographic, how easily can that position be filled?

Forcing diversity, be it racial or gender, without regard to the physical and mental demands of a job will end in failure, the only question remains is, "how catastrophic?"