Month: February 2019

After the Senate vote on 2/25/19 President Trump said, “This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress.” The Senate had just defeated “Born Alive, Abortion Survivor Protection Act” by a vote of 53-44, and Mr. Trump was repulsed. I would guess even most of you who are not fans of Donald Trump will agree with his response.

Think about how disgusting this is – a baby that is born alive . . . crying, breathing, with a heartbeat is then killed, and this is okay according to 44 Democrats in the Senate! 
Compare the following two statements and tell me which one makes you want to vomit: 

Mitch McConnell said, “this is a straightforward piece of legislation to protect newborn babies.”

The president of Planned Parenthood referred to this infanticide as “a direct attack on women’s health and rights!”

Although I do not agree with the pro-abortion position in general, I can understand it. However, the condoning of the murder of newborns is beyond the pale. 

Q: Who could possibly think that this is within the bounds of acceptable behavior? 

A: 44 Senate Democrats voted against this bill. In essence they voted to permit the execution of some newborn infants, contingent on the circumstances surrounding their birth.

As could have been predicted all Senate Republicans voted to protect the lives of innocent newborns, while to their credit three Democrats, in effect, had the balls to tell Chuck Schumer, “even in your wildest dreams, murder of an innocent newborn cannot be condoned.”
Some of you might be asking why the Senate Majority Leader brought this up for a vote in the first place, as even if it passed, it would never be brought up in the Pelosi-controlled House. The answer is intuitively obvious . . . there is an election coming up in less than two years from now. The question here is whether voting that it is okay to kill babies will have consequences in the upcoming election. In 2020 there will be not only a presidential election, but also In 2020 there will be 34 Senate seats up for a vote; 22 of these are presently held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats. Even though there are many more Republican Senators up for re-election, many of them are in states that went for Trump in 2016. At this point there appears to be only three Republican Senators that are in serious jeopardy because their states went for Clinton in 2016 – Collins in Maine, Gardner in Colorado, and Ernst in Iowa.

On the other hand, there is one Democratic Senate seat that undoubtedly will  be flipped to Republican – Alabama, and three that could possibly be flipped – N.H., Minn., and Virginia.

You can guarantee that there will be a lot of commercials, some vivid, that will depict a present Democratic Senator as a “baby-killer.” Fasten your seat belts!

Sometimes something is so good that I cannot decide which facet to write about. Which tact should I take? Such is the case with the Jussie Smollett fiasco! Today I am going to write about the myriad of possible neologisms that may arise from the “Empire” actor’s bizarre behavior.

The most obvious is “Jussie.” From Townhall’s Kurt Schlichter:  “I propose a new verb. “Jussie” (verb): To promote a bigoted lie about conservative Americans that faithfully supports the liberal narrative while being so transparently false that only the stupidest of the people pushing it actually believe it.”

The neologisms are not limited to Mr. Smollett, although this is the one that is is the most likely to stick. The statements from both Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Cory Booker are both ripe for the picking. For example:
Kamala Harris: “@JussieSmollett is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I’m praying for his quick recovery. This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate.” 
Cory Booker: “The vicious attack on actor Jussie Smollett was an attempted modern-day lynching. I’m glad he’s safe. To those in Congress who don’t feel the urgency to pass our Anti-Lynching bill designating lynching as a federal hate crime– I urge you to pay attention.”
Either “a Kamala, a Harris, a Cory, or a Booker” could mean “an unbelievably naive reactionary statement from someone who actually knows nothing about what has actually occurred.” 

On second thought President Barack Obama should have cornered the market on naive reactionary dumb statements when he quickly commented on the arrest of his friend, Henry Gates Jr., a Harvard professor, in July 2009. As I am sure you recall,  Gates, who is black, was arrested after a neighbor called 911 to report that two men were trying to get into a house in what she worried might be a burglary. The responding officer, Sgt. James Crowley, asked Gates to step outside of the house. Gates refused. A confrontation followed, and Crowley arrested Gates on a charge of disorderly conduct and led him out of his house in handcuffs.

Within a week or so President Obama said about the incident, “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that.” Subsequently, however, he then proceeded to comment on how badly the Cambridge police had acted . . . even though he “had not seen all the facts!” Big faux pas! His attempt at being a conciliator with his “beer summit” failed, and his credibility on anything race related never recovered. 

Even if the term, “a Kamala” or the term, “a Booker” never catch on, a lot of people will not forget the Smollett affair, and you can be sure that if either of them make it to the finals, President Trump will not let the American people forget what fools they made of themselves and how poor their judgement was.

There is a potential major ice jam in the Green River, and I am not referring to the 1980 hit song by Credence Clearwater Revival. I am referring to the recent report about the performance of the green electric cars in winter. This study was carried out by AAA following the test procedures drawn up by SAE, an auto engineering group. It looked at the performance of five different electric cars at a temperature commensurate with a typical winter temperature.

The study examined the performances of BMW13 (2018), Chevy Bolt (2018), Nissan Leaf (2018), VW e-Golf (2017), and Tesla (2017) at temperatures of 20F. When compared to performance at 75F, at 20F there was a significant decrease in the range of these cars. When the interior heater was not used, the decrease in range was 12%, however when the interior heaters were used there was a decrease in the driving range of these electric cars of more than 40%. Those of us who have lived in areas of the country that have real winter know that the interior heater is on way more often than not, even when the temperature is much warmer than 20F.

This study also looked at the effects of hot temperatures (95F) on the performance of the same aforementioned electric cars, both with the air-conditioner on and also with it off. With the A.C. off, the driving range decreased by only 4% compared to a decrease of 17% with the car’s air-conditioner on. Those of us who live in areas of the country that have summer know that the air-conditioner is always on when the ambient temperature is 95F, and if the corresponding humidity is high (real summer), the A.C. is on at well below 95F. For the sake of fairness, I need to say that Tesla disputed the results of this study. It said that there was only a 1% decrease at 95F (A.C. on or off?), but would not release the percent decrease for cold weather.

Jason Hughes, who owns four Teslas in North Carolina said that during the recent cold weather, the ambient temperature “would easily double the amount of power used for my 15 minute commute.” One of the recommendations to try to circumvent this cold weather electric car issue is to heat the inside of the car while it is still plugged in. Certainly if you do that, the driving range will not be decreased as much, but you are still using electricity when  the car when it is not moving.

Many years ago when I lived in Illinois, one of my coworkers was an avid jogger, but he would not go running if the temperature was less than 30F. Similar to my ex-coworker could it be that in the winter a lot of electric cars also won’t be spending a lot of time running outside, but rather will spend a lot of time behind the Green Door, and I don’t mean the hit song by both Jim Lowe (1956) and Shakin’ Stevens (1981).

Surely Sen. Cory Booker (D,NJ) must have been flummoxed as some new over-the-top lefties in Congress were getting all of the publicity. Rashida Tlaib (D,MI) sprinted from the starting gate using the F-bomb on her first day, and not to be outdone, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D,NY) endorsed something called the “Green New Deal,” which is some environmental-wacho scheme that would increase the top tax rate to 70%. However, the dagger to the heart for Spartacus certainly must have been that a fellow leftist Senator, Elizabeth Warren (D,MA), beat him to the potential presidential starting gate when she announced that she was running well ahead of Sen. Booker’s announcement that he is also now a candidate.  However, Sen. Booker really does not have much to fear from Pocahontas other than she has a more recognizable nickname. Even in the “I can tell a bigger whopper than you” category, Cory Booker is right up there. His “Spartacus moment” (from the 1960 movie starring Kirk Douglas) turned out to be a fake, as were his past constant referrals to T-Bone, a Newark drug pusher, who did not exist. This makes me wonder, “Is he really a vegan?” . . . “No me importa!” However, more serious and more dangerous than his lying for effect, is his 2017 statement on the safety of marijuana when he said in a speech calling for federal legalization that the states that had already legalized marijuana “are seeing a decrease in violent crime.” Gong! Gong! Not so, Cory. Facts actually do matter when you are talking about Mary Jane (not the 1978 song by Rick James). What are the facts?

The four states that initially legalized marijuana, Colorado & Washington in 2014 and Alaska & Oregon in 2015, had 450 murders and 30,300 aggravated assaults in 2013 (pre-legalization). In 2017 (post-legalization) in the same four states combined, the murders jumped to 620 – a 38% increase. Over the same period of time the aggravated assaults increased by 7,700. Coincidence?  Not likely, according to Alex Berenson in his book, “Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness and Violence.” According to studies cited by Mr. Berenson marijuana can cause psychosis in individual cases, and psychosis is a high risk factor for violence. He cites a 2012 paper in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence that found a doubling of domestic violence in adolescents using marijuana in the U.S. Likewise he cites a 2017 paper in the journal, Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, that found that drug use, predominately cannabis, was linked to a fivefold increase in violence. Again to quote Mr. Berenson: “For centuries, people all over the world have understood that marijuana  causes mental illness and violence – just as they have known that opiates cause addiction and overdose.” Mental illness and violence? Really! Who says? A 2017 report from the National Academy of Medicine pointed out that there is “substantial” evidence that Mary Jane impairs judgement and driving ability, and increases the risk of psychosis and schizophrenia.Now granted Sen. Booker may not read the journals quoted by Alex Berenson, and probably is unfamiliar with the report by the National Academy of Medicine,  but perhaps he could ask T-Bone so that he might learn the street truth about Mary Jane!

Back over fifty years ago there was a radio and then a T.V. show called You Bet Your Life starring Groucho Marx. By today’s standards it was really bush league with contestants starting off with $25 and years later $100! The “secret word” part of the show was hokey, at best, even back then. If any of the contestants said the “secret word,” a bizarre duck-like Groucho Marx caricature complete with glasses and a mustache, dropped from the ceiling, and the contestants won an extra $25!It was this secret word that made me think of this old show . . . but kind of in the opposite direction. I think that if there is the secret word in any of the nationwide syndicated news articles, our local paper will not print that syndicated news article. As an aside I have written multiple letters-to-the-editor, but if my letter contains this secret word, there is no chance that it will be printed. The secret word is “illegal.”

Let me give a few recent examples to prove my point:

Recently, Wilbur Ernesto Martinez Guzman, a nineteen year old illegal from El Salvador was charged with murdering four people in Nevada during armed burglaries from 1/10 – 1/15/19. He had been in the U.S illegally for about 1 year and was living in Carson City, Nevada with his mother and his siblings. Was this story carried in my local paper? . . . No!

Border patrol stopped Jose Gomez, an illegal, on 1/28 while he was attempting to sneak back into California from Mexico. Señor Gomez  had been convicted of Felony Child Molestation in Georgia (2007), and previously had been convicted of Felony Abduction and Kidnapping  in Virginia (1999). Was this story carried in my local paper? . . . No!

Gustavo Perez Arriaga, an illegal, was recently arrested and charged with the murder of a California police officer, Ronil Singh. This story made the national news and so my local paper was forced to print this story, buried deep on the inside of the paper. However, over the last few weeks an additional seven people have been arrested and charged with aiding-and-abetting Señor Arriaga’s potential escape to Mexico. All seven are illegals! Was the story of any of these arrests carried in my local paper? . . . No!

But perhaps the most glaring example of the “secret word” being an absolute no-no in my local newspaper is Kevin McCarthy’s (R,CA) speech last week in the House of Representatives. Now I can already hear some of you saying that speeches in the House are numerous and obviously not all of them can be commented on in the newspaper. However, what made this speech extremely unusual, and thus newsworthy, is that it was followed by a standing ovation by all of the House members that were present (both Democrats and Republicans), their staff, and those visitors in the gallery! You read that right . . . a standing O! What did the House Minority Leader do to elicit such a reaction from an albeit sparse group of legislators?  He read the names of fifty 50 Americans that have been killed by illegals. Again was this story carried by my local paper . . . No!

Perhaps newspapers not carrying stories containing the secret word should be illegal!

Sometimes as I write these pieces, I make an attempt to be a bit humorous. Most of the time I am afraid that these attempts fall flat, but thank the Lord for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), who may have missed her true calling as a comedy writer. Her most recent New Green Deal is hilarious! Initially I was going to try to avoid AOC, but after actually reading the points of her New Green Deal (NGD), I am no longer able to restrain myself as it is absurd on so many different levels. (Amazingly Senator Ed Markey (D, Mass), who was her cosponsor on the NGD, is now bellyaching because this monstrosity may actually be brought up for a vote in the Senate. At this point one must ask if there is something in the water in the greater Boston area, as AOC went to college in Boston.)  However, I asked myself is there a point at which some of these absurd points in the NGD indeed cross over to insanity? I count 14 different points in this non-binding drivel, and it is difficult to figure out which of these is the most ridiculous. For the sake of brevity I am going to try to group most of the absurdities of the GND into some general categories that each exemplify “absurdity . . . bordering on insanity.”

1. Retrofit all buildings with “green” technology. Focus on the word, “all.” Note that she is not just talking about government buildings, but all buildings. Think about the enormity of doing that in just Boston alone, or in just one state, never mind throughout the country!  Absurdity . . . bordering on insanity! Link that to the goal of 100% of the power demand in the U.S. coming from “clean, renewable, and zero emission” energy sources. AOC: you might want to rethink how you are going sell that to the people in the Midwest who have just experienced temperatures of 25 below zero. I am quite sure that there could never be enough windmills to heat the homes in Peoria, much less in Chicago where during the winter the solar panels would be dormant as the sun may not be seen there for months. Absurdity . . . bordering on insanity!

2. Ban the combustion engine, thus making all autos electric with, get this, charging stations “everywhere!” Focus on the word, “everywhere.” Think about the enormity of doing this in Los Angeles, a city that totally depends on cars. Where exactly on the 405 or the 5 freeway are these charging stations going to be located? Absurdity . . . bordering on insanity! Combine this with a severe restriction on air unnecessary travel. (Would this include the millions of miles flown by Nancy Pelosi?) I presume that AOC means air travel by airplanes, and that air travel by balloons or blimps will still be acceptable ( there is a lot of hot air already in the NGD.). I believe that high-speed rail is supposed to be the panacea here. AOC: perhaps you should get reacquainted with reality, as our governor just scrapped the high-speed rail boondoggle in California. Absurdity . . . bordering on insanity!

3. The giveaways that promise everything with no conception of who or how this is going to be paid for. Free college, free universal health care, and the pseudo-European  guaranteed medical and family leave to go along with government provided vacations. What would this actually mean to the economy? (The GNP would begin to resemble the slope of a downhill slalom course.) Absurdity . . . bordering on insanity! In addition to providing government retirement security, the government will also provide jobs for those who wish to work, and money for those who do not wish to work. Yes!! If one does not wish to work, so-be-it, he/she will get paid anyway! This is not absurdity. . . bordering on insanity, but absolute insanity! I think by now that everyone is getting the general idea . . . and I haven’t even mentioned the vague, not yet specified, plan of what to do about the farting cows! .This is absurdity . . . err, absurdity to the nth degree!!

The following are excerpts from the Charlotte Observer, a North Carolina newspaper, on 2/8/19:

The News: After North Carolina’s largest counties cut ties with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency said it’s been forced to adopt a “new normal”: one that resulted in the arrest of hundreds of immigrants, living here illegally, this week.

The Background: Since December, newly elected sheriffs in the state’s two most populous counties — Mecklenburg and Wake — have reversed a policy that notifies ICE about the legal status of inmates in county jails. The Durham County Sheriff’s Office also ended the practice of honoring ICE detainers.

The Practical Outcome: “This is the direct conclusion of dangerous policies of not cooperating with ICE,” said Sean Gallagher, who oversees the agency’s operation in the Carolinas and Georgia. “This forces my officers to go out onto the street to conduct more enforcement.” Of the 200 individuals arrested this week, one-quarter have criminal convictions, one-fifth have pending cases and another quarter have evaded deportation orders. Nearly one-third of those taken into custody by ICE this week are what the agency calls “collateral” arrests – immigrants who are living here illegally but lack any kind of criminal conviction or pending charges. That figure was less than 10 percent for those arrested in the most recent fiscal year. Gallagher, the ICE field director, said more of these individuals are likely to be taken into custody when ICE is restricted from accessing county jails.

Let me get this straight – Of the 200 or so individuals arrested about 70% are “bad hombres” (25% are criminals, 20% are potential criminals, and an additional 25% who have been deported, but who have not left.) This leaves the 30% who are basically “innocent bystanders” or “collateral arrests” . . . granted this group are here illegally, but are apparently otherwise  law-abiding. So these sheriffs, in return for protecting a group of “bad hombres,” already in custody, have essentially sacrificed about 60 “innocent bystanders!”  

Does anybody think that this outcome is good for the immigrant community?  “Silence!”  

I am not hearing, “Strong work, sheriffs!” Rather I hear complaints from the supposed immigrant advocates that ICE is “bullying” these “innocent bystanders” by actually doing its job. Well, sport’s fans, ICE is going to continue to do its job as long “law enforcement officers” refuse to do their job. By not cooperating with ICE, they are continuing to protect the “bad hombres,” while the “innocent bystanders” continue to be caught in a wide net, and this benefits . . . who?

My position has always been to leave the “innocent bystanders” alone as long as identify themselves and do not vote or receive any benefits. However, at the same time, get rid of the “bad hombres.” For some reason the advocates of “sanctuary policies” accept the “sacrifice of the innocents!”                                                                  

I just don’t get it!

Back when I was a soccer coach, I did not know much about soccer, but it was apparent to me that a winning strategy was to force the opposing teams to go to their left. Now granted that it was only youth soccer and at that time I had seen only about ten to fifteen soccer games in my entire life, but this philosophy worked. Keep them out of the middle and guard them so that they had no other option. Force them to go to their left, and the further to their left, the better! Back then this strategy made sense because the vast majority of youth players could not, and thus did not use their left foot. “Force them to the left” was a winning strategy.

Today, “Force them to the left” is also a winning strategy . . . in politics. If the Republicans can subtly encourage the Democrats to go to the left with their 2020 presidential candidate (the further to the left, the better), the better chance the Republicans will have to win in 2020. I say this because I do not think that the country is ready for a far-left president. Think McGovern (1972). Think Mondale (1984). Think Dukakis (1988). Think Kerry ( 2004). Obama won in 2008 because of his charisma and his skin color, not his politics. Thus far, each one of the Democrats who have thrown his/her hat into the ring for 2020 are way on the left side of the middle, and we should be rooting them on.

Cory Booker . . . “You, the man!”

Kamala Harris . . . “You go, girl!”

Elizabeth Warren . . . “Don’t give up, Kemosabe!”

Beto O’Rourke . . . “Just because you lost in Texas, doesn’t mean anything!”

Hillary Clinton . . . “The second time will be a charm!”

You get the idea. Whenever you are speaking to your liberal friends, tell them that those on the right are really afraid of these far left candidates. Write letters-to-the-editor, using fictitious names, that suggest that only a far left candidate has a chance to win. If there is enough hoopla for the far left candidates, those centrist Democrats, that may actually have a chance to win in 2020, will not get into the primary voting fracases. Hopefully, with this advice, you now be able to maximize your role in the upcoming 2020 election, and we can all go out there and win one for the Trumper!

I told my buddy, Hans, that I had a great idea for a business. “I am going to start a solar panel installation service in Montana, with the hope that I can expand over the border into Alberta, Canada.” Now Hans is a smart guy, and I figured that I could tap him for some investment capital. Hans looked very skeptical, and so I followed with, “Basically we would be the first players in the Montana solar installation business. The sky is the limit!”

 Hans, who is known for not beating around the bush, replied in one word, “Dummkopf!” He continued, “Edmonton, Alberta has winter basically six months of the year and during it’s three warmest months it rains on about 25% of the days. In Great Falls, Montana there is winter six months of the year, and summer for only three months. Neither of these places has enough sun to provide anything but a bare minimum of solar power. Why in God’s name would you think that solar power could be successful in these areas?” And for emphasis, “Dummkopf!”

Now was my chance to show off. “For your information, Hans, Great Falls, Montana is at the same latitude as Munich, Germany and Edmonton, Alberta is at the same latitude as Berlin, Germany, and the Germans have made the decision to stake both its present and its future electrical needs in renewable energy, including solar.” 

At this point it appeared that Hans was slowly counting to himself, and when he reached “ten,” he slowly but firmly said, “They are dummkopfs! They have been on this ‘Energiewende’ (energy transition) kick now for about 20 years, and thus far have spent close to $200 billion. What do they have to show for all of that money? . . . they have some of the highest energy (electricity) prices in the world!! More than half of its energy is imported, and, meanwhile, Germany is still spending 20 billion euros per year subsidizing renewable energy. Dummkopfs, 20 billion euros!!”

He wasn’t done. “Now Germany gets about 27% of its total energy from renewables which includes wind, hydro-power, biomass, and solar. In 2016 solar power accounted for 6.2-6.9%. Solar panels in Berlin? Dummkopfs! To make this energiewende even more ridiculous, 40% of Germany’s electricity is still coming from coal, which is not exactly a “green” source of power. At the same time Germany is now getting 22.6% of its energy from natural gas, 60% of which is coming from Russia. What if Russia decides to turn off its gas supply spigot? Dummkopfs!”

Hans continued on for another ten minutes, and finally finished laughing at Germany’s vow to be completely free of nuclear power by 2022. Again, “Dummkopfs!”Being of German ancestry I guess that it was okay for Hans to collectively call the Germans, ‘Dummkopfs,’ just as it is okay for me to call the Democratic  California politicians, ‘Dummkopfs’ for following Germany’s master energy plan.

It was Tuesday night. I was busy doing something, and had turned on the T.V. for a little background noise. Could it be that the channel was showing a high school basketball game – as the girls in the stands were all dressed similarly. It soon became apparent that this cadre was probably at their first game, as they kept looking at each other to see if they should clap or sit on their hands. God forbid that a novice might inadvertently stand and cheer because of something she thought was a good thing. Could it be that some in the group were the designated clappers, as the others would initially look around for guidance, and if those designated ones did not applaud or stand, then the rest would not stand or applaud. The one thing that was totally befuddling to me was the dour expressions on the majority of their faces. If they were in pain, why were they at a basketball game? Only once did they all rise up and show spirit – standing, clapping, and giving each other high-fives. I thought, “How typical of freshmen!”

After I turned up the volume on the T.V., I realized that this was not a meaningless sporting event, but rather the State of the Union address by our President. However, as I watched and paid attention, I continued to be confused by the behavior of those dressed in white, as they did not appear to understand or applaud when President Trump would say things that all Americans should be enthused about:

“American greatness” . . . sullen and silently sitting on their hands!

“Low unemployment rates among minorities, the disabled, and women.” . . . bored,   with disinterested facial expressions!“

Taking care of veterans” . . . surely this would generate an enthusiastic response, as  don’t all patriotic Americans stand behind our veterans? . . . still sitting, with even  more scowling!

An introduction of an ICE agent who had saved hundreds of women and girls from sex-traffickers. Certainly, I expected him to receive a standing O from all, but instead the “non-cheerleaders in white” gave him a sitting-non-O! I was flabbergasted . . . could it be that they are pro-sex-trafficking?

I could go on . . . “Angel families, deescalating tensions with No. Korea, five million people now off food stamps, increased child tax credit, increased middle class prosperity, increasing wages for blue-collar workers . . . nada, nada, and more nada from the ladies in white!

 I was baffled, and I am sure that a lot of those watching were as dumbfounded as I was. What was the reason for their non-patriotic behavior? 

-Could it be that they didn’t understand the game of basketball?

-Could it be that they all suffer from a significant loss of hearing?

-Could it be that they only speak Spanish? 

-Could it be that they basically do not like America and Americans?

Take your pick.