Obama’s Parting Shot

Keeping true to his legacy of socialism and anti-American sentimentality to the very end, President Obama could not resist the opportunity to poke his fingers in the eyes of the legal system. And I think those were his middle fingers to boot.

Every President exercises their right to commute sentences and grant pardons. While they can and do exercise that right at any time during their tenure, it seems they often leave the most controversial ones to the end of their term.

Take for instance the highly controversial pardon by Bill Clinton on his very last day in office of fugitive financier Marc Rich. Rich was on the lamb in Switzerland at the time of his indictment for tax evasion and making controversial oil deals with Iran during the Iran hostage crisis. He never returned and eventually died in Switzerland.

Oh, but that was merely the wound, Clinton then couldn’t resist rubbing salt in it by commuting the sentences of 16 members of the Puerto Rico terrorist organization FALN. Congress condemned this action by President Clinton, with votes of 95–2 in the Senate and 311–41 in the House. In all Clinton commuted sentences of 41 people and pardoned 151.

During the terms of both Bushes, daddy Bush granted 71 pardons and only 3 commutations. The son pardoned 190 people and commuted the sentences of only 11 people.

During the last eight years, Obama has been quietly undermining the sentencing prerogatives of the courts. He has granted 1,176 commutations – including 395 life sentences – and 148 pardons. Most individuals granted executive clemency by Obama had been convicted on drug charges, and had received lengthy and sometimes mandatory sentences at the height of the War on Drugs

Obama has said he has been motivated to exercise his clemency power by a belief that the sentencing system in the United States was used to lock up minor criminals — often minorities — for excessively long periods of time.

On this December 19, Obama granted 153 commutations and 78 pardons, making that a record for the largest single-day use of the clemency power. He still has until January 20 to go. I have to wonder what other pardons or commutations could come.

The big questing on many minds is whether he will pardon Hillary Clinton for her email indiscretions and outright lies. If he doesn’t will President Trump keep his pledge to jail her?

And what are the odds Obama’s final parting shot might be outright pardon for Black Panther and cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, or the deserter Bowe Bergdahl for whom he traded five high-level terrorists held at Gitmo to the Taliban? 

Makes you ask why we even bother having laws and sentencing.

Sour Grapes

To the complete dismay of a preponderance of California voters, Donald Trump won the Presidential election. With a solid 61.5 percent of the votes, Hillary took all 55 electoral votes for this winner-take-all state. It was not enough, though, to offset the Trump electoral votes of Middle America. Trump is our President Elect and will be sworn into office January 20 of next year.

Ah, but Californians – at least the left-leaning Californians – aren’t content with that outcome, after all, California does have a Democrat Super Majority in the statehouse, a Democrat Governor, and two Democrat Senators. How can they possibly cope with a Republican President, especially one with Donald Trump’s personality?

Problem solved, they say, we’ll simply secede from the Union. They call it CalExit after the now famous, or infamous, British fiasco of Brexit. Whoa, hold the train. Didn’t 13 states try that in 1860? And wasn’t there a bloody war fought to keep those states in the Union against their will? Maybe those CalExit people might want to rethink this whole idea.

So, Californians are a bunch of sour grapes. But I remember Texas threatening to secede if Clinton won the election. When I heard that, I actually thought about buying land in Texas. I might still look into Texas real estate if CalExit succeeds.

It has been said that if California were a nation it would have the 7^th largest economy in the world. Although, it would likely be far less of an economic powerhouse if Silicon Valley were carved out. The Democrats in this one-party state have consistently driven manufacturers and business out of the state. It has been at the bottom of the list of business-friendly states for many years and is likely to remain there much longer. It would be interesting to see just how they would cope with being a separate nation.

What would they call California following secession, the independent nation of California, the Peoples Republic of California, How about Mexifornia? Maybe California could remain a possession, like Guam or Puerto Rico. Or perhaps Mexico could annex it. After all, the Hispanics already make up a majority in the state, and nearly everything is labeled in Spanish. Would President Trump build a wall around California then?

And what about all those Hollyweird celebrities that threatened to move if Trump was elected? Just think, they could all cancel their moving vans and stay in their own left-wing country.

Here’s an idea, maybe those other “Blue” states could join California. Losing Illinois alone would decrease the murder rate in the US significantly. And who needs Washington and Oregon anyway. Wouldn’t that be “progressive?”

Alas, I am stuck in California and just have to accept the fact that I’m surrounded by, ugh, Democrats. Thanks to the snail-paced economic recovery in Southern California I can’t yet afford to move to, say, Texas. So here I will remain.

It is sad that the CalExit crowd and all those distraught college brats can’t cope with reality the way I have. I do take solace in the hope that perhaps some of those celebrities will stay true to their word and leave. Maybe that’s too much to hope for. I would be glad to help them pack.

Optimism v/s Pessimism

 I used to have a computer screen saver that floated a saying across it. You could write anything in the marquee so I put: Optimism is the Curse of the Uniformed. It seemed appropriate since the recession was killing businesses right and left and mine was sinking faster than most. There was not much to be optimistic about in those years.

Does that make me a glass-half-empty person? Actually, no, I am an engineer by profession. I don’t think the glass is half empty or half full. Engineers believe the glass needs to be re-engineered.

And so it is with government. Many viewed the Obama years optimistically, perhaps an equal number view them pessimistically. Apparently, enough people viewed Obama’s legacy with pessimism and voted for Donald Trump. Trump vowed to “drain the swamp” in Washington DC, and that note struck a resounding chord with voters who were fed up with politicians and government intrusion into their lives.

While Trump goes about filling key positions, we see a lot of criticism from the left and some praise from conservatives --yep, pessimism v/s optimism. But this time it is reversed. The left and far-left leaning cities are perhaps beyond pessimistic, while those in Middle America finally have something to be optimistic about.

If the stock market is any indication, optimism for the new administration is well in order. After all, The Donald did vow to bring manufacturing back to this country, cut the red tape for startups, and remove the onerous taxes and regulations imposed on businesses. That means more opportunity for new business and more private sector jobs.

What a breath of fresh air! Had Clinton won, there would undoubtedly have been a continuation of Obama policies that saw the slowest recovery from a recession ever. There would have been more regulations, restrictions, and taxes on businesses, thereby resulting in more manufacturers leaving the country in an effort to be competitive and fewer private sector jobs. The traditional big-government response would have been to pour more tax dollars into make-work projects to artificially reduce the unemployment numbers. Since we are pretty much maxed out on our borrowing, the only way to pay for those make-work projects would be increased taxes.

Well, there you have it, optimism versus pessimism. Donald Trump has given us the hope and optimism that the glass will be filled, while Hillary Clinton gave us the doubt and pessimism that the glass was being drained much faster than it would ever be filled.

So now, Mr. President-elect, it’s time to show your hand.

So far, most of the Trump selections for key government positions have been Washington insiders and politicians, and a few of the better Generals also made the cut. The big question could well be, how does this drain the swamp?

Frankly, I had expected Trump to tap the managerial dynamic of the private sector more than he has. I do applaud his addition of proven military men for some key positions, though. It is high time for our military to be represented by people who know the trade.

I am optimistic, though. I fully expect to soon see lobbyists circling the drain as the swamp begins to dry up. We already hear the cries of professional politicians and lobbyists in Washington as they scramble to remain afloat in the swamp. Maybe the glass is only half full after all.

Thank God for Middle Americ

By now, I’m sure most of you have seen the map of counties that went to Donald Trump. It looks like a map of America in red with blue brackets at both sides. Okay, in all fairness there are splashes of blue throughout the map as well – very small splashes.

Those red counties are the places Obama referred to as “clinging to guns and religion.” The people of those counties are the ones Hillary Clinton called a “basket of deplorables.” And taken by sheer acreage, it is the vast majority of our country. It is home to the hard-working people who have been hit the hardest by the recession and those who have failed to see the “recovery” touted by the Obama administration.

In this election, as in that of 2000, we see that wonderful constitutional instrument called the Electoral College come under attack. Well, of course, I would expect no less of a losing party. Had Trump lost he would have used the same excuse.

But is it fair? After all, every other elected post is determined by a popular vote, why not the highest position in the land?

Well, it is exactly because it is the highest and most important position in our government that the founding fathers decided not to entrust it to a popular vote. At the time the constitution was created, less populous states like Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia would have been easily out-voted by those more populous states like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. To those founders, that smacked of tyranny and needed a better solution than popular vote.

Interestingly, a similar problem existed with congressional representation. Many of the voting populous were located in states that had few slaves. The solution of the time was to allow 5/9 of the slave population to add to the voting population for apportionment of representatives. History is mute on why this method was not used for Presidential election, but as things stand today, we are most fortunate it was not.

Why not simply use the apportioned and elected congressional representatives to select the President? Well, at that time, there was not much in the way of political parties, but there was still sufficient wrangling among cliques within congress to foresee the problems that would cause.

How the President would be selected was such a contentious problem that it was one of the very last additions to the Constitution, and once it was added, the actual duties of the President were entirely left out.

In the end, a suggestion that had been discarded early in the convention was resurrected and flushed out to everyone’s, albeit reluctant, acceptance. The college of Electors was born and inserted in the final Constitution. While based on the same apportionment as Congressional Representatives, it stripped any connection to those representatives and shielded the President from the politics of Congress.

It was basically a good idea. Unfortunately, like much in the Constitution, it was an incomplete solution. And since anything not specifically called out in the Constitution is left up to the States, the implementation of the Electoral College became inconsistent.

Electors are chosen by the political parties, and the winning party gets to have all the electoral votes for that state. Can you see the problem here? This is exactly what the founders tried to avoid. Some states, however, proportion the electors by the vote within that state. In addition, electors are not legally bound to vote as dictated by their party!

What a mess! Still, it has allowed the people of mid-America and those states with small populations from being dictated to by the likes of New York, California, and Illinois.

Do away with the Electoral College? First, that would require a constitutional amendment – try to get 2/3 ratification for that. Second, it can be fixed. But any attempt to change it would likely end up looking like election by popular vote.

Personally, I like the Electoral College and believe it was an enlightened solution to a very sticky problem. It is too bad it was not fully defined in the original Constitution. It could use a better implementation but works pretty well as it is.

More Campaign Fray

Yes, I watched both the Vice Presidential debate and this last Presidential debate. Talk about day and night, the two “debates” could not be different. Tim Kaine and Mike Pence were, for the most part, civil, even though Kaine merely parroted the Clinton campaign dialog. On the other hand, civility could never describe the “debate” between Clinton and Trump. A better description might be “brawl.”

I have to wonder if somehow, Jerry Springer might responsible for orchestrating these Presidential debates. Probably not, though, since there were no chairs thrown. Maybe next time.

So, how will I vote in this election? The fact is I am still in a quandary. One thing I do know is that my vote will not be for either candidate. It will merely be against one of them, and right now, that will be against Hillary Clinton.

On my score sheet for this last Presidential “debate”, Trump won on points. The first debate may have gone to Clinton merely because Trump failed to ignore the misdirection and softballs thrown to Clinton. None of her failings, scandals, and lapses of judgment came up in the first debate. This time, Trump was prepared. He ignored the “moderators’” efforts to push the tone in a more favorable direction for Clinton and hit her where it hurts.

The woman, by her own admission, has been involved in politics and government for more than thirty years. During that time what exactly have been her accomplishments? Has she worked for the betterment of the ghettos or any part of the Black community (e.g. jobs, education, or even infrastructure)? Has she done anything about illegal immigration or even worked to make life better for any immigrants? Did she help change the tax code to prevent billionaires from paying no taxes? Did she try to rein in Wall Street influence?

The answer is no, and these are the issues she is running on! As Trump managed to point out, several times, they are merely words for Clinton. Like most politicians, she talks the talk on the campaign trail but when it comes to walking the walk, she is absent. Wikileaks even revealed that Clinton believes in a public face and a private policy when it comes to the issues. Do the math, that’s two faces!

We also learned just before the televised debate that Donald Trump is no angel. Surprise! In fact, he is more like most men when the women aren’t within earshot; he talks trash. No, it’s not pretty. It’s not meant to be. It’s just how we men are.

So, is this an issue? Because I kind of think that things like ISIS chopping off heads and burning people alive in cages might be more of an issue. I also think the Clinton foundation pay-for-play and foreign contributions might be an issue. Or how about our shrinking military and shrinking prestige on the world stage due to the Obama policies that Clinton wants to continue? There is also that issue of Chinese man made islands in international waters and the increased Russian aggression. Or maybe Nuclear North Korea in the hands of a madman should be an issue. And let’s not leave out Iran, who now has 1.5 billion dollars more -- thanks to Obama -- to proliferate their terrorism.

Somehow, I find the issue of Trump’s potty mouth very small, in fact, minuscule, potatoes compared to these larger issues. Yet, this is what Clinton and the mainstream media bring to the forefront as to why Donald Trump should not be President.

Well, folks, Donald Trump is running for President, not trying to date your daughter. Frankly, I could not care less what language he uses. I care more about what his plans are for bringing our economy out of the toilet. I care about his plans for bringing manufacturing jobs back to this country. I care very much who the next President will appoint to the Supreme Court. I also care about restoring our military might and prestige on the world stage – you can bet there will be no apology tours in a Trump Presidency. There are also immigration – both legal and illegal – issues that I care very much about. I don’t trust Clinton to be on the right side of those issues either.

No, I don’t think Donald Trump is the best choice for President. Unfortunately, I don’t see an alternative.

Light at the End of the Tunnel?

As the Obama years thankfully winding down, can we finally say there is light at the end of the tunnel? For over 7 1/2 years, we have been following the failed leadership of a man who was elected solely because of the color of his skin.

Not so? Well, can anyone name another attribute that might qualify him for the office of President? The only “job” he ever held was a community organizer – whatever that means. He was in the US Senate only a few months before being elected President, and during most of the time in the Senate, he authored no bills and was marked absent for votes. He had zero foreign policy experience, no management experience, had lost his law license, has no open college records, no one – even those he now calls close – can remember him in college, hung out with virulent anti-Americans and racists. Yes, sounds just the kind of person we would want in the White House.

Okay, it’s almost over. Let’s look at what damage electing a person merely to be the first anything gets us. The list of failures is long, so I’m not going to go into detail. Besides, you have already suffered through them and probably know all the unsavory parts. Incidentally, I copied these from Steven Martino’s website. It makes my head hurt too much to think about these long enough to make a nice list. Besides, the tears keep ruining my keyboard:

Scandals:

IRS targets Obama’s enemies; Benghazi; Spying on the AP; The ATF “Fast and Furious” scheme; Sebelius demands payment; The Pigford Agriculture Department Scandal; The General Services Administration Las Vegas Spending Spree; Veterans Affairs in Disney World and neglecting vets; Solyndra; New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation; The hacking of Sharyl Attkisson’s computer; Obama’s LIES about the Affordable Care Act; “I have a pen. I’ll Pass My Own Laws”; NSA Spying on American People;

Foreign Policy:

Lack of solidarity with Israel; Disaster with the Arab Spring; Crimea takeover; Leaving Iraq too soon and letting ISIS take over; Handling of Syrian Red Line; Calling ISIS “JV”; Failing to Recognize ISIS as a Radical (or Devout) Muslim Movement; Returning the bust of Churchill to the Brits; Lack of Confidence by NATO nations; Signing a Disastrous Nuclear Deal with the Mullahs of Iran; Paid $5 Billion & Released 5 Taliban Prisoners For Deserter Bergdahl; Waging war by attacking Libya without Congressional approval; Allowed the building of Chinese bases in the South China Sea and off the coast of Somalia at the entrance to the gulf of Aden; Paying ransom to Iranian for hostages and using foreign currency in unmarked plane; Lying about paying ransom (which media ignored!); Pays tribute to Japanese at Hiroshima on US Memorial Day; Trashed America 18 times on Asian Tour.

Domestic Policy:

Failure to secure the Border; Illegals bringing guns, drug and diseases through the southern border; Passing on the keystone pipeline; 20 Trillion dollars more in debt; Vast expansion of government; Racial Division at all-time high; Inviting Bomb Boy Ahmed to White House; Disrespect for Cops; Failed economic stimulus plan; Constant disregard for the Constitution and tyrannical rule; China overtook America as world’s largest economy; Housing policies failed to stop foreclosures; Price of healthcare has drastically risen for those purchasing it; Education policies failed to curb college costs;Highest percentage of Americans on Food Stamps and Medicaid; Record 92,898,000 Americans over 16 years not working; Lowest Labor Force participation rate of 62.7%; Denying the notion of American Exceptionalism; Securing the Olympics for Chicago in 2016; Naming numerous Communists/Socialists/Progressives to Czar Positions; Mismanagement and cover up of Terrorist shootings in San Bernardino, California; Mismanagement of Gulf Oil Spill; Disastrous Vetting Process of “Immigrants” from Muslim Nations; Refusing to Listen to CIA/FBI that there is no way to properly vet certain immigrants from Muslim nations; Fort Hood Shooting; Colorado EPA Disaster; Veto of 911 Crime Bill- which was overturned; Worst economic recovery since the depression with anemic GDP numbers; Over 94 million Americans out of the workforce.

Whew! I’m sure Steve Martino probably missed a few, but with about three months of this king’s reign left, I’m sure the list will grow.

But again, I’ll ask, can we see light at the end of this dark and dreary tunnel? Next month will answer that question. Hillary Clinton has already praised Obama for his “accomplishments”, although I can’t imagine what those might be, and stated that she intends to carry forward his policies and use them as a template for her own agenda.

If you are expecting light at the end of this miserable tunnel, don’t expect Hillary to provide it. She is looking to extend the tunnel and maybe even make it darker and more miserable. Maybe she’ll even put a few skeletons from her closet in it.

American Sovereignty at Risk?

The United States was founded as a sovereign nation. We fought two bloody wars for that sovereignty. The United Nations designates the US as a sovereign nation. But how much of that sovereignty is real?

Our constitution allows the President to make treaties with other nations with the advice and consent of Congress. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give any of the three branches of government the authorization to abdicate any portion of our sovereignty. We have borders – no matter how porous they seem at present – and we have laws. No other country or entity can exercise power over our citizens.

Well, that is exactly what we are led to believe. Do you recall ever hearing the phrase “money talks, BS walks”? It is true. Money – and especially today, foreign money – does indeed talk. It also controls.

Nothing is quite so powerful as the money invested in political candidates, and none are as powerful as those financial giants that donate millions to our election process, even if it is from foreign sources.

Hillary Clinton would have you believe that the Clinton Foundation has nothing to do with her candidacy or fortune (estimated to be upwards of  $110 million). After all, the Clintons were dead broke when they left the Whitehouse in 2001. ("We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt."— Hillary Clinton on Monday, June 9th, 2014 in an interview on ABC)

So somehow the Clintons managed to go from “dead broke and in debt” to multi-millionaires in fifteen years. I’m sure they worked hard for that wealth. But let’s look at who is contributing to the Clinton Foundation: Saudi Arabia, Oman, Dubai, and various other foreign nations. Remember, money talks.

Now look at who the big contributors are to her campaign. Well, looky there! George Soros is at the head of that list.  That’s right, the same George Soros who spent $27 million trying to defeat George W. Bush. The George Soros who compared Donald Trump to the Nazis. The George Soros who founded and runs the Open Society Institute. You know, the one that advocates for a one-world society with no borders. Yeah, that’s the one. Also, the George Soros who makes politicians ask how high when he says jump.

This is the very same George Soros who reportedly donated $650,000 to a group of thugs calling themselves Black Lives Matter to stir up the racial divide in the country and maybe incite a few riots. Soros also supports Moveon.org and a list of other leftist organizations.

Does Soros hate America? George Soros wrote in The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror, “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.”

Here’s another interesting quote: Referencing the state of the world following the collapse of the Soviet empire, Soros said, “The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.”

Both quotes are from In His Own Words: An Examination of Some of Soros’ Socioeconomic Philosophies, The Blaze.

It’s not enough for President Obama to say that the Constitution is an old and outdated document. Now, we have a candidate that could very well follow him in office that is deeply beholden to both foreign interests as well as those who would work for the demise of American sovereignty and free market.

Could she sell our sovereignty? Well, remember the next President will appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice and may even be able to appoint another four during the term. Couple that with a Democrat Congress and folks, anything could happen. And with these people, you can bet it won’t be good.

Under Siege

On September 19, we witnessed four bombing incidents in two states – all perpetrated by the same bomber, all in the name of radical Islam. Two improvised explosive devices (IED) were set off in a New York City and two pipe bombs exploded in garbage cans along a route set for a Marine Corps charity race in Seaside Park, New Jersey. The bomber, Ahmad Khan Rahimi was born in Afghanistan in 1988 and first came to the United States in 1995. He traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan many times.

That same day, another “Soldier of the Islamic State” stabbed 9 people in a crowded Minnesota mall. St. Cloud Police Chief Blair Anderson said that suspect, Somali immigrant Dahir Ahmed Adan, made at least one reference to Allah and asked one person if they were Muslim.

Last June 12, Omar Mateen shot up a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida killing 49 and injuring 53 people. In a 911 call, Mateen voiced his allegiance to ISIS.

In our own backyard last December 12, another devout Muslim couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, pulled a Bonnie and Clyde and shot up the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, killing 14, and injuring 17.

I could go on – and the list is long, 78 attacks in this country alone since 1972. There have been 48 attacks since 9-11.

But Islam isn’t just at war with the United States. In August – just one month – jihadists killed 1637 people and injured 1734 in 203 attacks on 33 countries. Alone this month 43 attacks in 14 countries have killed 191 and injured 228.

Many of those murders – women, men, and children – were of the most horrific and brutal type imaginable, slow and agonizing beheadings with a hunting knife, burning victims alive in a cage or with a flame thrower, even tossing victims off tall buildings.

We are told that Islam is a religion of peace, charity, and tolerance. Our own President – raised with Muslims, whose family are Muslims, and whose closest advisers are Muslims – has expounded the contributions made by Muslims over the centuries. This same President cannot bring himself to label these atrocities the acts of Islamic extremists.

We are under attack folks, and it’s not from Quakers, rednecks or doomsday preppers. We are being attacked by a growing doomsday cult of psychotic killers who have hijacked a religion and perverted the words of the holy Quran for their own unholy purposes.

Until our government can at least recognize the cause of this abomination and pronounce the words Islamic Terrorism, they will never be able to effectively combat these attackers and provide a safe, secure environment for its citizens.

They can outlaw and confiscate guns, knives, ammunition, explosives, chemicals, pressure cookers, and pipes until they amass a mountain of items to dwarf the Rockies, but they will never be able to secure this country or any other until they understand that they are fighting an ideology. Radical Islam is a cult. It must be dealt with as one would a cult.

We can kill their leaders, bomb villages, fight armies, and jail individuals, but we cannot win this fight without attacking the root cause of this radicalization.

Our world is under siege not by armies, not by individuals with workplace violence issues, not by people radicalized by an accepted ideology. We are being attacked by a cult of psychotic killers who have subverted and perverted the teachings of Mohammad and the word of God as relayed to him by the Archangel Gabriel (Jibrail). And they attract recruits into their cult by using their perverted dogma.

These people have violated the teachings of hadith and the Quran and will be punished by God. Driving this point home to these jihadists is the only way to combat their atrocities and put an end to this cult.

None of this will happen, though, until our leaders recognize that we are fighting a dogmatic cult and can say the words Radical Islamists.

Our Ambivalentocracy

In the 2000 presidential election, an episode of the Today show on October 30, 2000, displayed a map of the United States with States colored according to the potential Electoral College delegate vote. States that were likely to vote Republican received a red color, while those expected to vote for the Democrat candidate were colored blue. Several states, where there may be a questionable outcome, got shades of pink, light blue or purple. Today this color scheme has become the accepted standard for election talking points.

If one looks at the map of the last four elections the immediate thing that stands out is that almost the entire heartland and most of the Southeast is red. The Northeast and West Coast are mostly deep blue.

Interestingly, those blue states are all centers of urban population; New York Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, California, and Washington are invariably deep blue. Rural states like Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Arizona, Utah, the Dakotas, and Montana are deep red. Most Southern states and Alaska are also red, while several less populous states, notably, New Hampshire, Vermont, Michigan, Maine, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Mexico seem to run blue. The rest are those “Toss-up” or “Battleground” states where most of the Presidential campaigning takes place.

Why is this? Should we blame the Electoral College? Should we blame the Founding Fathers? Well, maybe.

There were two highly contentious issues at the Constitutional Convention in 1887. The first was how representatives should be elected. The industrial states and agrarian states didn’t trust each other. Each was concerned about unequal representation. If the elections were based fully democratically, the more populous industrial states would receive far more representation than the rural, agricultural states. The solution at that time was to give slaves 5/9 per person count in allocating representatives.

Today, there are no slaves to tilt the scale toward equal representation in rural states, so once again the agricultural states get far less representation than the more urbanized ones. One look at the red state – blue state map and that inequality will stick out like Shaquille O’Neal in a jockey convention.

But whoa, isn’t that a map of the presidential elections? Yes, it is. And that brings us to the other big point of contention in the 1887 Constitutional Convention … the Presidency.

We had just fought for independence from the tyrannical rule of a monarch. The last thing anyone at that convention wanted was another monarch – although there were a few that pined for the rule of a king, they were well in the minority. But the Articles of Confederation were completely devoid of any executive authority, which made them totally ineffective. That was the main reason for the Constitutional Convention.

So, they relented to having a chief executive. Unfortunately, none of those learned men could define precisely what that executive could or should do. So, it was left mostly blank in the finished constitution – sort of a TBD job description. Until George Washington filled in those blanks by example, no one seemed to know just what the President was supposed to do.

When it came to deciding how this President should be selected, there was even more contention. It took four days to sort out the details and it still wasn’t definite. In the end, a cumbersome method of election by Electors was agreed upon, and those Electors could be determined by the individual states and allocated according to the number of legislators from each state.

That was probably a good idea at the time, but by now that method has become nearly a de-facto election by population representation. And again, the rural states have little or no say in the matter. But because of the large number of rural, “Red” states and the few “Blue” states, even though those “Blue” states have a greater number of Electors, the numbers force the election to be focused on several battleground states.

Folks, we are delegating the future of our country to a minority of people who can’t make up their minds! Our nation will neither be in the hands of a monarch nor will it be a true democracy, it is in the hands of the ambivalent. Yes, we are doomed to live in an “ambivalentocracy”.

The Great Divide

Do Black lives matter or is that just a slogan? Well, when over 72% of African-American births are out of wedlock (CNN Don Lemmon July 27, 2013), I might ask, do Black wives matter? Just for reference, that number is 25% for non-Hispanic Whites and 42% for Hispanics.

Kimani Gray, the 16-year-old son of single mother Carol Gray, was shot dead after pointing a handgun at Police in Brooklyn, N Y.

Trayvon  Martin was born in Florida on February 5, 1995. His parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, divorced four years later.  Martin was shot dead in 2012 at Sanford, Florida while struggling with Neighborhood Watchman.

Michael Brown, shot dead in Ferguson, Missouri while attacking a police officer following a strong-arm robbery of a convenience store. Brown’s mother, Lesley McSpadden and Michael Brown, Sr. were never married to one another.

In Baltimore, Maryland, Freddie Gray, arrested for carrying a switchblade knife, fell into a coma while being transported and later died. His single mother Carol Gray, reportedly never went past middle school, couldn’t read, and had a heroin habit.

Eric Garner, died while struggling with New York police after refusing to be arrested for illegally selling cigarettes. Garner was out on bail the day he died. He was fighting charges for illegally reselling cigarettes, marijuana possession, false personation and driving without a license. He had reportedly been arrested more than 30 times in his life mostly minor for offenses. He was the son of single mother Gwendolynn Carr.

Just this year in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Sylville Smith was armed with a stolen handgun when he fled a traffic stop August 13. The officer ordered Smith to drop his gun and when he didn’t, the officer fired and wounded Smith in the chest and arm. Smith later died of his injuries.

Each of these deaths was the prime cause of rioting resulting in millions of dollars in destruction. Note, that with the exception of young Kimani Gray, each of these men was killed in the act of committing a crime. Gray was stupid enough to point a weapon at police. These are not choirboys or pillars of the community they are thugs, robbers, and criminals.

Each time something like this happens race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson were sure to be in front of cameras to stir the pot. Even President Obama on several occasions defended these men, going so far as to say that, “if I had a son he would look like Travon [Martin].”

So, did the lives of these men matter enough for the fathers to be a part of it? Do Black lives matter only when an officer takes the life of one?

Do Black lives really matter to fellow Blacks? Remember, 72% of Black babies are being born out of wedlock. Now consider according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black offenders committed 52% of homicides recorded in the data between 1980 and 2008. Yet, blacks make up only 13% of the population. Here is the telling factor a full 93% of black victims were killed by Blacks!

Does the family unit make a difference? Well, 25% of Whites are born out of wedlock, and while Whites commit 45.3% of homicides, they make up 62.06% of the population – nearly five times the number of Blacks. Maybe, just maybe, the family unit might have something to do with the problem.

Yes, there are rogue police, just as there are rogue dentists, lawyers, judges, and rogues in any other profession. These people must be sorted out and removed from a position of authority. Then too, police are human. Many have wives or husbands and family waiting for them to come home safe. Law enforcement is one of, if not the, most demanding professions, both mentally and physically. Cops, just like you and I, have good days and bad days.

So here is the bottom line: If you are dumb enough to commit a crime, you will be arrested. If you give the arresting police a hard time, things are not likely to end well for you. This is a universal fact no matter what race you are.

It’s not a matter of racial divide. It’s not a matter of profiling. It’s a matter of public safety and universal enforcement of the law regardless of race. Unfortunately, it is also a matter of perception being fuelled by the news media and despicable race baiters with their own agenda.

Delayed is Justice Denied

There can be no doubt the way California is handling the death penalty is not right. Oddly enough, there are few on either side of this issue that would disagree. And once again, there are initiatives presented to the voters to rectify the situation.

What both sides can’t seem to agree on, though, is how to fix a broken system. And yes, there are two sides to this issue.

On one side, we have those people who unfailingly show up to protest any execution. These are the Prop 62 people. Their solution is to simply do away with the death penalty and deny the victims and their loved ones the justice they deserve.

On the other side are those tired of the interminable waiting and constant legal antics and roadblocks for sentences to be carried out and justice to be done. These are the Prop 66 people.

Right up front, I have to say that I whole-heartedly support Prop 66. You can stop reading now if you don’t care to know why.

These days California death row inmates are more likely to die of old age than be executed. Of the 864 prisoners sentenced to die since the California Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1978, 119 died before being executed for their crimes, 71 by natural causes. In the US as a whole, the average length of time an inmate stays on death row has been climbing since a low of 71 months in 1985 to 198 months in 2011. Should it take 16-and-a-half years for victim’s families to see justice done? 

No executions have occurred in California since Clarence Ray Allen’s execution in 2006 – a full 10 years! Although, one case, Alfredo Rolando Prieto, was sentenced to death in 1992 for a heinous San Bernardino County murder and extradited to Fairfax County, Virginia to stand trial for two murders he committed in 1998. Prieto was executed in Virginia in 2015.

Of the 746 prisoners currently on death row, 279 have exhausted appeals and the California Supreme Court has confirmed their sentence. In other words, these killers and the victim’s families are waiting for the prison system to get off their keisters and do the job California taxpayers are paying them to do.

In California, male death row prisoners are held in San Quentin, while female prisoners are sent to the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla. But all executions are currently authorized to be done at San Quentin.

Prop 62 has been tried, folks. In February 1972, the California Supreme Court found that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the California state constitution and 107 condemned inmates were re-sentenced to life with the possibility of parole and removed from California’s death row. Among those 107 were Charles Manson and his followers. Today Manson enjoys the comforts of the general prison population privileges and he and his followers regularly come up for parole hearings. Let me ask you, how safe would you feel with the Manson family on the streets, maybe even your neighbors?

In 1978, the people of California had had enough and overwhelmingly approved an initiative to restore the death penalty. Ever since then, there frequently appears on the ballot an initiative to end the death penalty. In 2012, a nearly verbatim Prop 62 initiative, Prop 34, went down in flames by a 58 to 42 percent vote.

If Prop 62 succeeds this year, there will be 746 people guilty of the most heinous capital crimes instantly thrown into the general prison population… and escaping the fair sentence of the courts. Justice will once again be thwarted.

Mary Jane’s Snake Oil

Did you know that the bark of the willow tree could be used to relieve headaches? It’s true. That is the main ingredient in aspirin. I find it odd that there aren’t dispensaries for willow bark or people clamoring to use willow bark for medicinal use. There aren’t even any backyard willow tree growers.

It’s an absurd idea, isn’t it? Imagine people munching on willow bark or even experimenting with different ways to ingest it or extract parts for a stronger product. After all, the pharmaceutical companies have done a great job of productizing the useful chemicals from the bark and creating pills in varying strengths. The FDA has even approved aspirin and lists the possible side effects of using this drug. There’s no need to chop down willow trees or strip their bark; half a dozen companies do it all for us.

Okay, let’s try to get past the emotional side of the marijuana argument and look at this in a calm, collected, logical manner.

In California, it is legal – with a qualified card – to buy, possess, and use marijuana for medical purposes. In several other states, it is even legal to use pot for recreational purposes. No card necessary.

This November we will be presented with Prop 64, an initiative to legalize recreational marijuana use in California. There were petitions for no fewer than sixteen individual marijuana propositions circulating, but as of now, the only one assured to be on the ballot is Prop 64. I have two questions regarding legalization of this drug:

First, is it necessary? To get a pot card in this state, you only need a valid ID, pay the fee, and present a doctor’s “recommendation.” One might think that the doctor’s recommendation (not an actual prescription) might be the regulating part that would ensure the use of this drug for legitimate medicinal purposes. It’s not. It’s all too easy to find a quack ready to fill out a recommendation for the drug for anything from hangnails to hair loss. You only need to pay the doctor’s fee. So much for “medicinal” use.

Second, is it wise? Think about that willow bark scenario and ask yourself why pharmaceutical companies have not extracted or synthesized the useful parts of cannabis and productized it? Well, the fact is, they have.

There are some 483 chemical compounds in cannabis. The part that gets you high – and the part the potheads crave – is THC. CBN acts with THC to increase the strength of the psychoactive effect. Separate those out and you have 481 other potentially useful compounds that won’t get you high, impair driving, cause munchies, or wreck your brain.

Some pharmaceutical companies are marketing cannabis compounds for specific uses, such as glaucoma in children. Of course, the THC is thankfully removed for those medicines targeted at children. In fact, there are currently 10 known pharmaceuticals made from cannabis compounds, some with THC, and some without. To date, only three of these have met approval by the FDA. To my knowledge, none of these are approved for over the counter sale.

Why is this significant? The FDA was created in response to the rampant use and sale of ineffective and often deadly drugs (aka, snake oil). Drugs gaining FDA approval have been tested for treatment of specific ailments, the side effects are known and published, and recommended dosage is listed.

In other words, you don’t have to go nibbling on a willow tree to relieve a headache. The FDA has approved aspirin and recommended dosage while listing the nasty side effects of the drug. Just go down to the drugstore and buy a bottle of pills with the recommended dosage already on the bottle.

Why can’t the same be done with cannabis? Smoking the weed is far more hazardous – as much as ten times more dangerous – than smoking cigarettes. Stuffing the weed into brownies or any other baked goods puts all 483 compounds, some not so healthy – into that little morsel.

The worst part of taking your “medicine” raw is where and how it is sold. You can’t go down to a pharmacy, along with people buying toothpaste and foot powder, present a prescription and get little bottles of measured, tested, and labeled pot complete with recommended use and side effects listed. You go to a “dispensary” to have another pothead dole out whatever you want. Pay your money, good-bye, and good luck. Happy smoking!

As you can see, there is a huge difference between legitimate pharmaceuticals and some weed being shelled out at a hole-in-the-wall dispensary. And for clarification, licensed pharmacies dispense legitimate drugs for an intended purpose for use under a doctor’s care, while pot dispensaries sell snake-oil at any strength and amount you can afford.

Hillary Short-Circuits

Question: When is a lie not a lie? Well according to Hillary Clinton, it’s not really a lie when you “short circuit.”

An August 5 edition of the New York Times reported, “Hillary Clinton on Friday sought to explain her recent mischaracterization of the F.B.I. investigation into her private email server, saying she ‘may have short-circuited’ in her remarks during a television interview on Sunday when she asserted that the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had called her statements about her private email servers ‘truthful.’”

That one is right up there with her husband’s explanation of lying. “It depends on your definition of the word ‘is’.”

I would offer that the Democrats might answer that question by saying it’s not a lie if a Democrat says it. After all, think about all the times Obama has “short-circuited” and how many times the Democrats have denied those were lies.

Well, here are the facts, direct from the July 5^th FBI report:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly denied that there were any classified emails on her server. The facts do not support that claim. In other words, Hillary did not “short circuit” she blatantly and knowingly lied to the American people, and to Congress.

Why did the FBI or even the Justice department not recommend prosecution? Cowardice.

Had FBI Director Comey recommended prosecution of a presidential candidate and that candidate was subsequently acquitted, he would have been accused of fixing the election in favor of Donald Trump. Instead, he stopped short of recommending prosecution and merely accused Clinton of being careless and sloppy.

Comey also said, “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case… To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

Of course, they wouldn’t bring such a case. The Obama justice department under Loretta Lynch would have simply kicked it out of court.

No politics here folks just plain old corruption, and cowardice, and a little short-circuiting. You can’t make this stuff up.

The Great Khan Con

By now, I’m sure you either saw it at the Democratic convention or heard about it at some time on the news. I’m talking about the shameless feud between the Gold Star Khan family and Donald Trump. Shameless indeed, and both sides have their share of shame to be had.

A Gold Star family or person is one that has been awarded a gold star medal for the loss of a son or daughter in combat.

Okay, let’s start at the beginning. The DNC, as in many other elections, was not without their usual sleaze factor. From leaked dirty trick emails to rigging the election to the pre-selected candidate, Hillary Clinton, they really hit a new low when they politicized a Gold Star family. It was high drama with the appearance of Pakistani immigrants Khizr and Gazala Khan whose son, Captain Humayun  was killed on June 8, 2004, after he told his men to take cover and then tried to stop a suicide bomber outside the gates of his base in Baquba, Iraq.

Speaking at the convention in a slow and deliberate manner, Mr. Khan proceeded to release a diatribe against Donald Trump for what Khan, apparently perceived to be Trump’s intention to deny entry into the US of any Muslim. In the closing moments of his speech, Khan whipped out a pocket version of the US Constitution and offered to lend it to Trump. The cherry on top was Khan’s denouncement of Trump saying, “You have sacrificed nothing.”

Okay, that was the opening blow, and of course, The Donald is not one to ever let what he believes is a personal attack go unanswered. Trump, in his typical rambling way, said they were nice people, and in the same breath, cast doubt on Mrs. Khan’s ability to speak.

Well, it’s gone back and forth a couple of times in the TV talk shows with personal appearances from both the Khans and Donald Trump. Now every politician has tossed in their opinion as well – everyone from President Obama and Hillary Clinton to John McCain and Paul Ryan.

But what is this really about? There can be no doubt that Khans have suffered a terrible loss, only a cold, heartless person could not feel sympathetic to their loss. Is the fact that Captain Khan was Muslim have any bearing on that fact? No. Not any more than Asian and Latino families, as well as Christian and Jewish families that have lost loved ones in the military. Khan himself even pointed out that there are all faiths interred at Arlington National Cemetery.

So, what was his point? Khan said that according to Donald Trump they would not have been admitted to the country for immigration. Wrong! What Trump has on multiple occasions said is that refugees from the current war-torn countries must be carefully vetted before being allowed to enter the country, either for immigration or visitation. Until that can happen, they should not be allowed to enter the country. Now exactly how would that exclude the Khans from immigration?

And sacrifice? What is that all about? What has Hillary Clinton sacrificed, and since when is sacrifice a qualification for the Presidency? This is right up there with Obama’s you didn’t build that business – entirely irrelevant, uncalled for, and out of line.

But wait, it gets even better. Khizr Khan runs a service to help immigrants, predominantly from Muslim countries, enter the country. It’s how he makes a living! Of course, he doesn’t want more scrutiny of those he represents. It might have a financial impact on his business – something neither the Democrats nor the media has seen fit to disclose.

As for condemnation of Trump’s comments, I am completely baffled. Donald Trump is a tactless clod when it comes to speaking about others. That is a given and we should very well expect that. But did he say anything derogative about these people or their Gold Family status? Try as I might, I can find no report of any really negative response made by Trump, certainly nothing negative about being a Gold Star family.

No doubt, a tactful person would have handled the attack by Khan much differently. He might even have offered condolences for their loss, but then it would have been very un-Trump-like to do so. That doesn’t make it derogatory, though.

What is derogatory is politicization by the Democrats and media of a military family’s loss. It is, in fact, shameful, but what could we expect from a group whose candidate is a liar and scheming, dishonest career politician.

The Trump Trumpet

Well, it’s official Donald Trump is the Republican candidate for President. Like many in the Party, I’m not overjoyed at that choice. With somewhere around 300 million people in this country, I find it hard to accept that either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton could be the most qualified people to vie for the highest office in the land. But, we are a democracy and, we are told, the people have spoken.

On the bright side – if there can be one – Mr. Trump is proven to be a man who does what he says. He is decidedly not beholden to any big contributor or lobbyist. Although Trump’s demeanor is distinctly untypical of any politician I can remember campaigning for any position in government, at least he lays his cards face up on the table.

Yes, folks, Donald Trump is not my optimum choice for the office, but weighing the alternative, I am certain he will make a far better President than anyone on the other tickets. The only baggage he brings is his foot planted solidly in his mouth.

On the other hand, Mrs. Clinton has more baggage than an Arab Sheik on a world tour. Someone sent me one of those circulating emails the other day that listed all of the scandalous events surrounding Hillary Clinton. You know, the ones that would have landed any one of us in jail for a very long time but because she is a Clinton have been swept under the rug? Yeah, those actions!

I can’t remember the exact number, but it may have been somewhere in the neighborhood of around 30 items that could or should have been major scandals but were merely glossed over by the media. Again, I don’t remember all the details. Yes, the Benghazi debacle and murders were on the list along with stuff from the time she was with the Rose Law Firm. And oh, yes, the mysterious Vince Foster “suicide” was there too.

The exact details of the list are not as significant as the fact that most of them made only a few lines buried somewhere after the obituaries of the major newspapers. Even worse is the fact that these incidents are not even mentioned in any news media when presenting the voters with her qualifications for the office.

Does that mean they didn’t happen? Does that mean they were not significant? Does that mean if the Trump campaign brings them up that they will be reported? No, the media is too concerned with twisting Melania Trump’s excellent speech at the convention into resembling something Michelle Obama said once that also resembled something someone else wrote….

There may be a few reasons not to vote for Trump, but there are huge volumes of reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the biggest reason is that the next President will be immediately nominating a new Supreme Court Justice to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint Justices of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of Congress. The Supreme Court has become the arbiter and often definer of the US Constitution. There have been times when the court has gone beyond that role and acted to create laws by redefinition of the simple language of the Constitution.

We currently have essentially a three-person conservative (meaning strict construction of the wording in the Constitution) panel and four-person liberal (meaning liberal or even absurd construction of wording in the Constitution) panel with one swing vote in the justices now on the court. Scalia could usually be counted on as a conservative vote. If a liberal is appointed to the court, all decisions will automatically be shifted toward the liberal agenda. Anyone who might believe Hillary would appoint anything but a dyed-in-the-wool liberal is likely taking some high-powered hallucinogenic drugs. And remember, this is a lifetime appointment.

During his tenure, Obama managed to fill every high-ranking post in his administration with Muslims – some even committed to the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. Under Obama, we have seen the slowest recovery from any recession this country has ever had. Illegal aliens have been given sanctuary in the country, and there are now an estimated 22 million here who have no worry of being deported. We have seen major manufacturers leave the country, taking thousands of jobs with them. And, yes, you were not able to keep your health plan or doctor as promised by our President. You have probably even seen your health care degrade as your premiums skyrocket.

Do you really want another four or maybe even eight more years of Obama-like administration? That is exactly what Mrs. Clinton has promised if she is elected President. But we have seen that Hillary Clinton is not a person to be trusted. Maybe she won’t continue Obama’s policies as promised. Maybe she will do even worse.

Do We Need More Gun Control?

First, are you a gun owner? According to most sources I can find, some 88.9% of the U.S. population owns one or more guns. So, statistically speaking, it may be a safe bet you have answered yes to that question.

Now for the crucial question: Are you now, or have you ever considered committing homicide with a gun? Dumb question? Well, some people seem to think that question is not so inappropriate.

What’s that? You say you are a law-abiding citizen in good standing and would never even think about shooting another human being except in self-defense? Me too! But obviously, that doesn’t hold much water with those bent on controlling our lives. To those calling for strict federal and state gun control, we are prime suspects in the next homicide or mass murder.

Apparently, those calling for stricter gun controls are lumping you and me in with the .004% of the population that have committed homicide with a firearm. Yes, folks, we are guilty until… well, until when?

Are you offended at being lumped in with the likes of Larry Darnell Gordon, Micah Johnson, Omar Saddiqui Mateen, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, Adam Lanza, Major Nidal Hasan, and Dylan Roof among others? Well, you should be. These were some of the most heinous killers in recent history. They were psychotic murderers. But they were only a minuscule part of the gun owning population.

No one can possibly argue that gun-related carnage is not horribly despicable. It is something that should never happen to anther human. Then again, traffic deaths are no less tragic. Are homicides by knife or being bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat two-by-four, or golf club any less horrendous?

What is missing in this very loud shouting match is common sense. Whatever weapon is used in any killing is an inanimate object. Guns, knives, and baseball bats are only tools used by someone intent on committing murder. If you bash your finger with a hammer, you may curse the hammer, but is it really that tool’s fault?

We register and track possession of cars, but not drunks. When a drunk kills someone on the highway, is it the car’s fault? And there are many orders of magnitude more drunk driving deaths than gun homicides. Can we honestly say that vehicle registration has had any effect on the number of drunk driving fatalities?

Why then, could anyone ever believe that because a gun is registered that it won’t be used in a killing? And what about those black market guns. Oh yes, there are many. Just because a criminal can’t legally own a firearm does not mean they have any compunction about illegally obtaining one. It is a criminal act to murder someone; do you think that would make a killer think twice about illegally owning a gun?

Is there any logical way to define “assault weapon?” By reasonable definition, any weapon used in an assault would be considered an assault weapon. That would include any rifle, shotgun, cannon, handgun, knife, sword, baseball bat, golf club, or fork. Do the rounds of a rifle or pistol magazine make it any more of an assault weapon than, say, self-defense, hunting, or sport shooting weapon? It only takes one well-placed shot to kill. The most popular weapon carried in our Civil War was the Springfield Model 1861 single shot, rifled musket. That was considered a military assault weapon, yet no magazine or cartridge was even used.

It has been proven repeatedly that gun control does not reduce gun violence. People with violent and malevolent intent cause gun violence. Gun laws only make a new class of criminals, the formerly legal gun owners.

Gun control has nothing to do with guns or killing; it is all about control!

Does Trump Really Want to be President?

Well, you have to wonder just what Donald Trump’s strategy is for his campaign. During the primaries, he used personal attacks and insults to show he was not a typical politician. Great. Typical politicians seem to always be at the bottom of polls showing national confidence. Go for it Donald!

But now the primaries are over. It is time to begin looking Presidential. So, what does the man who would be the leader of the free world do? He shoots himself in the foot on national TV. He flip-flops on issues and swears he didn’t say things that were recorded when he said them. He insists on denigrating Mexicans and wants to ban all Muslims from entering the country.

I have to wonder just how he plans to garner enough votes to win this election. You don’t do that by alienating potential voters and huge segments of the populace. Trump’s feet have so many bullet holes in them I’m surprised he can even stand.

Uh, wait, this sounds like a pro-Hillary piece! No! Believe me, I don’t want another Clinton in the White House... ever! I especially don’t want to see Hillary Clinton as President. And although I am no Bernie Sanders fan, I believe he was shortchanged by the Democratic nomination process.

Well, it ain’t over until the fat lady sings. And that will be at each Party’s convention.

Is there any chance that the outcome of each convention will produce different nominees? Not likely. The Party rules specify the number of delegates each candidate must have to win outright and Trump and Clinton seem to have met that quota.

I am sure Bernie Sanders will protest the DNC rules that gave Hillary enough superdelegates to put her over the top. After all, it’s not very democratic to stuff the ballot with handpicked delegates.

Will Sanders bolt from the Democratic Party and make a third-Party run? I would. Bernie ran a full-on grassroots campaign and even though he promoted socialism he won a huge block of supporters, mostly young Millennials. As an Independent – he registered Independent most of his career – he could add spark to the election. With the Democrat and Republican candidates at an incredibly low confidence rating, he just might have a chance of winning.

As for Trump, and the Republican Party, they need to tie down this loose canon and put a filter on his mouth. The other day he read from the oft-maligned teleprompter… and sounded like a read candidate. Maybe that’s the answer.

But I think it is high time, the Republican leaders sit down with Trump and ask the crucial question: Do you really want to be President?

The Anti-Social Media

It’s déjà vu all over again (my apologies to the late Yogi Berra). Those of us in Southern California haven’t even heard the last of the December second terrorist attack in San Bernardino and here comes another attack in Orlando, Florida. The worst mass shooting in American history, we are told. Well, at least the worst in current memory.

Our President tells us it was “… an act of terror and an act of hate.” One of the two people who will be out next President is placing the blame on the legally obtained weapons the shooter used. The other wants to ban all Muslims from entering the country. It is obvious none of our current or future leaders have a clue about the cause of this or other “Lone Wolf” attacks.

First, let me say what it is not: It is not the easy access to firearms.

The San Bernardino shootings happened in California, a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The Tsarnaev brothers used common pressure cookers loaded with explosives and nails to wreak mayhem during the Boston Marathon. One of the bombers, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, told investigators that he learned the technique from an article in Inspire magazine. I will say more about Inspire later. The Fort Hood shooter, Army Major Nidal Hasan, legally purchased an FN Five-seven semi-automatic pistol to kill 13 people and wound 30 more. In London, England, British Army Fusilier Lee Rigby of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers was run down by a car and hacked to death by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. This happened in a country where gun ownership is extremely regulated.

The list goes on, but can you see the common denominator in every instance? Let me give you a hint. It’s not the weapons. These were all killers bent on doing the most damage in any way and with any means possible.

Now, let me tell you what it is: Every one of these incidents was perpetrated by “Lone Wolf” killers in the name of Islamic jihad. How were these people compelled to wreak this carnage? The blame goes to that grand facilitator, social media.

Twitter and the Internet are giving radical Islamic organizations the biggest soapbox possible. Through this media, they can talk directly with many followers and possible new recruits. They spew out jihadist propaganda and hate on a 24-7 basis.

In 2010, Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) published an English language on-line magazine titled Inspire. As its name suggests, it has inspired potential jihadist to travel to distant foreign lands to join in terrorist activities. It also inspires the “Lone Wolf” attacks in the jihadist’s homeland. Major Nidal Hasan was in direct email contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, a virulent mouthpiece for AQAP.

So how does a nice hometown American and devout Muslim become so radicalized that they would commit such heinous acts? Propaganda may be the most powerful weapon in any arsenal. Many aberrant governments have used propaganda to nefarious benefit. Cult leaders use propaganda to convert susceptive people into radical followers. Radical Islamic groups are using propaganda to entice Muslims to jihad.

And what better way to disseminate propaganda than through social media. The Internet provides any number of ways to get the message out to masses or individuals. And it is entirely unregulated!

The FCC in this country and governmental agencies in other countries regulate the content of television and radio, but there are absolutely no content restrictions on anything sent over the Internet. There has never been such an open and widespread forum in history. And it is free!

And here is the really, really bad news. Until we get a handle on social media content, we can look forward to even more and possibly larger “Lone Wolf” attacks. Even if through some sort of magic every gun in the country would immediately vanish, these “Lone Wolf” jihadists would find another weapon to wreak their planned havoc and mayhem. This will not stop, folks, until we cut off the dissemination of propaganda to susceptible people. Stop the anti-social media!

Remember The Last Recession?

I’m looking at a newspaper headline, “U.S. job gains are fewest in 5 years.” The Associated Press report that followed makes me wonder how anyone could believe the recession is over. In May, there were only 38,000 jobs filled in the entire country! Unemployment dropped to 4.8 percent, but only because the long-term unemployed fell off the list since they could no longer qualify for unemployment.

If we look at the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the combined national output that measures the country’s economic growth, the US Department of commerce says that in the first quarter of this year the GDP shrank from the last quarter of 2015 by 0.6 percent to a mere 0.8 percent. You can’t create jobs when production is down. And our national production isn’t just down it is in the toilet.

Right about now, you might well ask how this can be. Aren’t we living in the greatest country in the world? Didn’t our government leaders tell us the recession was over? Well yes, they also told us if you like your healthcare plan, you could keep it and that health care would cost less. I’m just saying if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, just because the government says it’s an eagle doesn’t make it so.

The United States government has been making a concerted effort to make doing business in this country as difficult as possible. From licensing, regulating, taxation, and fees, creating a new business is an entirely unappealing prospect. Throw in the government pro-union stance and you have a distinctly hostile atmosphere toward business and job creation.

The worst state for businesses, as ranked by Chief Executive magazine, is California. That’s right, a survey of 513 CEOs across the nation ranked California dead last right below New York and Illinois. Texas ranked number one in this survey, followed by Florida. And this isn’t a new low for California it has achieved that rank for the last eleven years in a row!

Chief Executive magazine commented about the low ranking: “Despite high taxes and a non-business-friendly environment, California remains a hotbed for tech, venture capital, and entertainment. Even with a quality workforce, this west coast state has not had any success in replacing lost business.”

About the leader in job creation, the magazine said, “Since the recession began in December 2007, 1.2 million net jobs have been created in Texas, while 700,000 net jobs were created in the other 49 states combined. From climate to transportation to cost of living, Texas has proven it can’t be beat.” Texans are always bragging about their state. Maybe they have good reason to brag.

Lost business. Yes, folks, the next time you see a big rig on the freeway, it might be loaded with the next business and its jobs leaving this state, maybe headed to Texas, or even worse headed to Mexico.

The Bloomberg website lists 84 companies that have fled the US due primarily to taxation. However, taxes are merely one component of the hostile business environment our government has created. Of the businesses in the Chief Executive survey, the top ten are Right to Work (RTW) states, while the bottom ten are non-RTW states.

Now comes the real rub, the jobs leaving the state are mostly in the higher paying manufacturing sector. What are left are mostly jobs in the service sector – the minimum wage jobs. Just ask anyone who lost his or her job at the beginning of the recession if they were able to find one that equals or beats the wages at the one they lost.

The government knows this that is why they clamored to hike the minimum wage to unbelievable heights. So what is left might very likely be $15 an hour wage people supporting other $15 an hour people. No society can be sustained by a service-only economic sector. In order for an economy to be productive and advance, it must include a manufacturing sector.

No folks, the recession is decidedly not over. The truly sad part of this tale is that politicians are telling us how they can fix this problem by adding more regulations. What they don’t seem to understand is that more government is not the solution it’s what spawned the problem in the first place.

Why Bother to Vote?

Are you planning to vote June seventh? Please don’t pass up this privilege merely because you don’t like any of the candidates. And if you do like a candidate, please vote for him or her on the qualifications and not just because they seem like a nice person or because they could be the first female or political outsider in the Oval Office.

Those who have read any of my columns already know that I am no fan of either Democratic candidate or of Donald Trump. That won’t deter me from voting. There are important other races on the ballot.

If you happen to watch television, and who doesn’t, you may have seen the campaign ads for US Senator. Yes, Barbara Boxer is retiring – a fact that we conservatives can well applaud – and the media have chosen her replacement, Kamala Harris.

Right, but there are other candidates. Loretta Sanchez, another Democrat, gets airtime too, but what about the remaining 32 candidates on the ballot for that office? Are you even aware of them? The County sends out a handy guide before each election. If you haven’t thrown it in the trash along with the junk mail, you might want to check out the rest of the ticket. Harris and Sanchez aren’t the only ones vying to be our Senator.

Actually, Harris and Sanchez may not even be the best-qualified candidates on the ticket. Yes, Virginia, there are Republicans and Independents running for the office too!

For far too long our state has voted in the US Senate with one voice, a liberal voice. Isn’t it about time to give the rest of the state a voice in government? After all, we are not all liberal Democrats.

The Unites States is a Republic. Congress does not take a national poll on every issue before them. We elect representatives to speak for us in the House and Senate. For far too long only the liberals have represented California in the US Senate. We are long overdue for a change.

Looking on the ballot you will also find races for US Congress, California Assembly, County Supervisor, and Judges. Also, in this election, there is a single ballot initiative, Proposition 50.

None of these elections are worth ignoring merely because you don’t like the choices. Even if you don’t vote for a candidate, you are in effect giving your vote to someone else, someone who might vote for a candidate you really don’t like.

If you are registered Democrat or Republican, there are, in fact, other Presidential candidates on the ballot besides Clinton, Sanders, and Trump. You want a protest vote? Being mindful of the fate of lemmings, you could always pick a candidate not already anointed by Party higher-ups.

Then too, there are other Parties on the Presidential ballot besides Republican and Democrat. If you have registered as “No Party Preference” or “Nonpartisan”, you can vote for candidates in the American Independent Party or Libertarian Party.

The most important issue is that you exercise the right not afforded many people in other countries, the right to vote. This is still a country of the people, by the people and for the people. As long as you vote, you are helping to form a government in your image. Your vote puts you in charge of your government. By not voting, you abdicate your voice in government to those who do vote.

Do I care how you vote? Of course, I do. The question is do you care how I vote. If you agree with me, please help support my candidates with your vote. If you disagree with me, you could always negate my vote; otherwise, I make the selection.

Waste Not – Want Not

I wish I could count the number of times I heard this growing up. According to Dictionary.com, “This proverbial saying was first recorded in 1772 but had an earlier, even more alliterative version, willful waste makes woeful want (1576).”

All I know is that it is easy to not waste much when you don’t have much. Were we poor? Probably. I know we didn’t eat a lot and what little we had was not very nutritious (is there any nutrition in Spam?). We also made do with what we had and repaired everything. We washed old clothes and handed them down. A pair of jeans would make the neighborhood or family circuit until they could no longer be patched and even then, they would be used as cleaning rags.

I guess that is why I cringe when I see people throwing out useful items. My biggest peeve is when someone throws out food simply because they have too much – not because it has spoiled, merely because they bought too many of an item. Food seldom gets a chance to go bad in our house because we eat all of what we buy.

The waste at food businesses is appalling. Grocery stores toss perfectly good fruit and vegetables that have been on the shelf too long. And by toss, I mean they fill dumpsters that then go to the landfill.

Restaurants serve portions they know will not all be consumed. Some of the meal may go in a “doggie bag” but much heads directly to the dumpster. Bakeries sell only fresh products. You never see day-old-bread anymore. So what doesn’t sell is trashed. Is it any wonder that homeless people flock around these dumpsters?

But it doesn’t stop there. In fact, the waste begins at the farm. Misshapen and blemished fruits and veggies never even make it to the grocery stores. Farmers know they can’t get top dollar for these goods, so they trash them even before consumers get a chance to reject them.

Is this a big deal? Well, yes it is, a very big deal. According to a recent report by UNEP and the World Resources Institute (WRI), about one-third of all food produced worldwide, worth around $1 trillion, gets lost or wasted in food production and consumption systems. And here are a couple more UNEP “fun facts”:

In the USA, organic waste is the second highest component of landfills.

In the USA, 30-40% of the food supply is wasted, equaling more than 20 pounds of food per person per month.

And speaking of landfills, well, I guess you could say the waste stops here. But we are not alone in this waste. Actually, at an average of 1,014 pounds of waste per person per year, we came in at number four in 2000. Denmark got the number one spot that year with 1,234 pounds per person, followed by the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

Yes, that’s a lot of trash. Trash that we pay for twice, once to buy, then again to dispose of. Have you ever thought about what is making up your trash? Probably not. If it fits in the trash container, it’s out of sight and out of mind. But consider this. How much of your trash is merely packaging of something else?

When we buy a collection of things like fruit or vegetables it goes into those handy plastic bags the stores provide on a roll. Then again, at the checkout counter, that bag of goodies goes into yet another bag to carry home. Everything else is pre-packaged in some sort of plastic container, and often packaged again in another container, then thrown into another bag to carry out the store.

And it doesn’t end at the supermarket. Virtually everything else you buy comes in a bubble pack, plastic bag, or cardboard box – sometimes in all of these for a single item.

And what of broken or old “well used” items? We don’t repair or refurbish anything these days. And manufacturers are feeding off this fact. Nearly everything we buy, from the smallest appliance to major items are made to be disposable. In the ‘60s, televisions had vacuum tubes and cost upwards of $500. It was cost-effective to repair them. Then came semiconductors and printed circuits for televisions. It was much more difficult to repair and would become cheaper to simply dispose of and get a new one. Today, landfills are bulging with old CRT type televisions, many still functioning perfectly.

So, what’s my point? It’s simple folks. Look at your trash container and think about how much money you have paid for every single piece of trash in there. If you happen to be rich, I suppose it doesn’t really matter. Most of us aren’t in the One-percenter Club, though. That trash container is full of money – money you paid for items in there originally and money you will pay for its disposal. If you can’t use it, sell it to the recycler. Waste not; want not, and save money. What a concept!