And So It Begins

The voters have spoken – at least, those in Iowa have. But just how much of a bellwether is Iowa? Out of the last eleven presidential elections – since 1972 – Iowans selected only seven of the eventual Democrat nominees, and six of the Republican nominees. Sounds more like my luck at picking horse races.

Okay, who fared well this time in Iowa? Ted Cruz won the Republican caucus; Trump came in a distant second and almost tied with Rubio, who came in third. Of course, there are no second place winners, even in Iowa caucuses. So, “The Donald”, in true narcissistic form declared Ted Cruz “stole” the election and demanded a do-over. Ben Carson wasn’t too happy about his placement either and stooped to throwing accusations too.

One thing this Iowa caucus has portended is the sour grapes anyone not coming out on top will have.

As for the Democrats, well it was a coin-toss – literally – between the only two remaining candidates, Bernie Sander and Hillary Clinton. Yes, it was reported that several caucuses had to literally toss a coin to make a decision. You can’t make that stuff up! That’s how close it was. In the end, Hillary was declared the winner by a couple of votes. Well, gee, does that surprise anybody? After all, Mrs. Clinton is the anointed favorite of the Democratic Party.

Of course, and in true socialist form, Bernie said they would look at those coin toss caucuses. I am surprised he didn’t point out that this is not the way it is done in other socialist countries. Well, no, Bernie, they only get one candidate in those countries.

On to New Hampshire. As this is a weekly column, the voting there will be settled by the time you read this. The favorites in that state, according to polls, would be Sanders and Rubio. If it does come out this way, what will the winners of Iowa say or do?

And Trump? Well, I am sure he will throw one of his tantrums – Trumpterums is what Cruz calls them. And it will be YHUGE!

As for Clinton, well, it will be a treat to see her beat down a notch or two.

But who were the losers in Iowa? On the Republican side, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, and Rand Paul all announced they would end their campaign. For Paul, this was no real surprise. He had failed to generate much enthusiasm among Republicans in any polls. The Santorum finish was interesting since in 2012 he beat out Mitt Romney in Iowa. I guess even Iowans can be fickle.

Why Huckabee didn’t make a better showing is a mystery to me. Maybe Iowans just don’t trust candidates from Arkansas. After all, they went for Bill Clinton in ’96 and look how that turned out.

Martin O’Malley never really had a chance for the Democratic nomination. He knew it and dropped out the day of the Iowa caucus.

Stay tuned, folks. This is only the beginning. In this horse race, anything can happen. And you can bet whatever does happen will be accompanied by a whole lot of fireworks and mud.

Welcome Planet Bizarro

I read a report in the news the other day about scientists finding a ninth planet in our solar system. Well, they didn’t actually “find” it. They still don’t know exactly where it is, but the propeller-heads ran the numbers and said it must be out there somewhere.

That’s strange because I met a person who claimed to be from that planet. His name is George and he is from planet Bizarro.

George said they try to hide the planet for fear that people on Earth would copy their ways. He also said it must not be working because we are getting very much like his homeland. For example, in Gooberland, the most advanced country on Bizarro, they had automobiles and were content traveling the land in them until the accident rate killed so many that their government outlawed motorized vehicles.

They also had a problem with obesity and did a study. They found out that ice cream was making people fat. Since everyone ate ice cream with spoons, the government outlawed spoons. They also drank sodas from buckets, and that contributed to the obesity problem, so, guess what. Yep, no more buckets in Gooberland.

I began seeing parallels in the way our planets function. I asked George to tell me more so he started talking about the schools.

“We have a system called ‘Common Score’. Every kid gets the same score on tests. That doesn’t make them any smarter but it does increase their self-esteem. Every student is guaranteed to pass every grade regardless of what they may have learned. It doesn’t matter if they can’t read or write coherently, many can’t even do simple math, but they are always guaranteed employment in our government.”

Whoa, this was hitting close to home. “What about those that can’t or won’t work?” I asked.

“Well, we do seem to have more than a fair share of them, but our government gives them everything they need – no questions asked.”

“Do you have a drug problem in Gooberland?” I asked.

“No, it’s no problem. When people fry their brains, we give them free needles and drugs so they don’t have to resort to criminal activity to support their habit. In our grade schools, we hand out free merrywanna to let them experience the mind-expanding capabilities of drugs so they can make a choice to go on to stronger drugs or join society in a productive manner.”

“How’s that working for you?” I asked.

“Well, at first, we sold the drugs and taxed it, but those using drugs weren’t very productive and couldn’t buy the stuff. So the government had to supply those drugs and welfare to keep the addicts off the streets.”

“And your taxes went up?” I said.

“Of course! We now have a ninety-percent tax rate. But there aren’t many businesses or jobs anyway. Our government taxed most of them out of existence.”

“So George,” I asked, “Are you sure you are from this hidden planet? It sounds like you may just be from San Francisco. Maybe you have been smoking a little too much of that ‘medicine’.”

“No,” George said. “ I am from Planet Bizarro. Your planet is merely beginning to look like ours. I’m thinking about returning home, though. Things are getting far too restrictive on Earth.”

The Non-State of the Union

Did you watch the President’s State of the Union address? Sorry to say, but I did. There should have a disclaimer under the picture saying, “This presentation is paid for by the people of the United States on behalf of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton.”

The best part was the beginning when Obama said he would keep it short. Well, for no more than he said about the state of the country, he could have made it a whole lot shorter.

If I had read the speech to my teenage kids they would have rolled their eyes and moaned, “Dad, you’re preaching again.” In all honesty, the crux of the speech was merely a not so well disguised diatribe against the Republican Party and especially Donald Trump.

Now, it’s no secret. I am not a big fan of Trump. But for the President of the United States to use the State of the Union speech to denounce Trump’s ideas without even naming him, is definitely a new low… even for Obama.

Sure, he did mention meeting with the new House Speaker, Paul Ryan, to find common ground that they might be able to work with. But then he went on to denounce or mock Republican efforts and ideals simply to highlight that any common ground is not going to be on substantial issues.

Did you notice that the economy has turned around and is now “robust”? Well, maybe not your economy. Are you earning more now than you did eight years ago? Somehow, that point wasn’t in the speech.

We can all rest easier now, though, knowing that ISIS and Al Qaida present no threat to the nation’s existence. Just because they can knock down skyscrapers killing over 3000 people, shoot up a government building full of people holding a Christmas party, blow up folks in the Boston Marathon, and plan even worse attacks doesn’t give us cause to worry. If you happen to meet a wild-eyed person wearing a suicide vest and carrying an assault rifle with magazines of ammunition taped to his body yelling Allahu Akbar, don’t be concerned. He doesn’t pose a threat to national existence. Why? Our President told us so.

I suppose we could take solace that this is, in fact, the last State of the Union address Obama will make, since in a year he will be out of the Oval Office. Unfortunately, he did say that he would still be working in the background. Or was that lurking in the background? Either way, it is certain the nightmare that is the Obama years will not be ending on the day they leave the White House. It will take a lot of arm-twistings and hard work to clean up the mess he is leaving. But unless Hillary replaces him, it will only seem like a bad hangover – eventually, it will go away.

There was one thing apparent about the speech – besides it being too long and having precious little to do with the state of the country. In Obama’s mind, his legacy is a grand one. In actuality, the legacy Obama will leave is that he was the worst President in the history of America. It is a title wrenched soundly from Jimmy Carter.

New Kid on the Block

I love this newspaper. Having been a part of it since its inception you may forgive me for being somewhat biased, but with each issue, it just keeps getting better.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the December 30 issue presented a new column by Douglas V. Gibbs. Mr. Gibbs comes to this newspaper with an impressive list of qualifications, Political Activist, Public Speaker, Constitutional Instructor, Radio Host, Publisher, author of two books, and best of all, Patriotic American.

His initial piece, James Madison and Judicial Review, may be a good indicator of just how knowledgeable Mr. Gibbs is about American history and politics. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and look forward to seeing more of his work in the coming year.

I too, have a bit of knowledge about James Madison and the founding of the US Constitution, as well as the role played by such renowned personages as Gouverneur Morris, Roger Sherman, Charles Pinckney, Edmund Randolph, John Dickinson, Alexander Hamilton, Elbridge Gerry, George Mason, and of course, George Washington among the 43 who argued and hashed out this great document. Many seem to revere the Constitution as an inspired document, but I am certain that had you asked James Madison he would have said it was more perspiration than inspiration. The months of wrangling in the confines of the hall in Philadelphia through hot and cold weather produced a masterpiece of political concession and reconciliation. Toward the end, even George Washington despaired that it would never be finished.

The Federalists (actually a misnomer, since they worked for a National union and strong central government in opposition to the Articles of Confederation) eventually got most of what they were after but had to make concessions that included amending the Constitution at a later date to include a bill of rights. The fact is that the Federalists (Madison, Hamilton, Washington, etc.) did not want a bill of rights enumerated in the Constitution.

Eventually, Madison thought that by including a bill of rights it would quiet the opposition to Constitutional control by the Antifederalists. Madison became, essentially, the father of the bill of rights. His original proposed amendments were whittled down to ten and added to the Constitution.

The final, tenth, amendment of the Bill of Rights gave all powers not expressly included in the US Constitution to the individual states, “or to the people.” As we all know, the argument over states rights versus Central government became a huge issue in the mid-nineteenth century resulting in thirteen Southern states seceding from the union and a civil war being fought. Apparently, since the South lost, the tenth amendment is now interpreted to mean that states have any rights the federal government says they can have.

Gibbs’ contention that the federal judiciary has overstepped its bounds is well founded. The cases where the judiciary has legislated from the bench are far too many to present. Those of us old enough to remember the Earl Warren Supreme Court should be very familiar with judicial activist decisions that strayed far from both the intent and actual wording of the Constitution.

Here is California we are saddled with 807 new laws that went into effect January 1. Not one of those laws challenge the federal government or even attempt to pry even the slightest control from the massive organization that has become our central government.

Are you feeling like a criminal yet? Do you know what those 807 new laws are? Do you know all of the federal laws on the books? I don’t. And I am sure I have probably violated something in the code, although I have no idea what would be.

Maybe the states have too many rights. 807 new laws in one year! If you think things have gotten out of hand, it’s only because they are.

Welcome to the newspaper, Mr. Gibbs. I look forward to reading more of your work.

New Years Resolutions

Okay, now that Christmas dinner leftovers are almost gone, and you have put the memory of that New Years party well behind you, it is again time for retrospection of events and promises made last January and making resolutions for the coming new year. Well, it is a tradition, even if a futile one.

So, I dug out the old resolution list and it occurred to me that it actually resembles more of a bucket list than a list of resolutions. There are the usual resolutions: lose weight, exercise, drink less, eat healthy, swear less, spend less, save more; you know, the good intentions that seldom last the week let alone the year.

Then you have the ones driven by guilt: visit the relatives, visit that old friend you haven’t seen since high-school, call your mother (not easy for me, since mine has been dead for quite a while; maybe I should scratch that off the list), call your out of state brother or sister (and say what? After “how are you” there is always an awkward silence).

Next, you have those nebulous, well-intended goals that one can never quite tell have been kept or not: be a better person (as opposed to what?), be less pessimistic (in this political climate? Good luck with that, this is an election year), be kinder and more considerate of others (is this even possible when you drive California freeways?).

Finally, you have the impossible dreams: finish your novel, write a novel, visit a foreign country (no, not Los Angeles), see Machu Picchu, go to Peterson Automotive museum (right, I have never been there), pay off your Christmas credit card charges before they charge interest, don’t touch your savings this year.

Like I said, it amounts to more of a bucket list than a list of resolutions. I seem to just repeat the same list every year… with no progress. Maybe someday, I might actually do one of these, but usually by mid-January, they aren’t even a memory.

This year, I think I will try a more realistic approach, maybe something like:

Take long naps; eat what tastes good; drink in moderation… most of the time; avoid the freeways and idiot drivers (I thought about taping down my middle fingers, but people would think I was a foreigner); wait until two days before an election, then vote for the loudest person; just figure everything is going to that dark place in a hand basket (this one never seems to be far off the mark anyway); swear silently… unless really ticked off; pray I wake up in the morning… but not too early; put off last year’s list to next year.

Okay, I think I can live with this list. I wish every one of you a very happy and prosperous new year.

Just Another Cult

Is there a particular organized religion in this country or around the world that presents a clear and present danger? Let’s take a look at that. Catholics? No, they haven’t killed anyone for not practicing Catholicism in centuries. Protestants? Well, there are a lot of Protestant organizations, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, Evangelicals, Baptist, Episcopal, Adventist, Quakers, I probably missed some, but I haven’t heard of any mass killings by any of these groups. Ah, the Mormons. Nope, not for a very long time. Mennonites, or Amish, Buddhists? No. Hindus. Nothing there either. Scientology? Sorry, they’re clean too.

How about Muslims? There may be a problem with the perception of the “religion of peace” as being a threat. Seems it’s not too peaceful to lop off heads, burn people alive in cages, throw folks you don’t like off tall buildings, blow up groups of people as well as themselves, shoot masses of innocent people while they are trying to enjoy a party or concert. Yes, there are people who commit these atrocities in the name of Islam. But are they really Muslims?

There is an identity for people like this; it’s called a cult. One definition in the Oxford American dictionary for a cult is; a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister. Yep, these radical “Muslim” groups fit that description quite nicely. They have hijacked an entire religion for their own nefarious purposes. It’s what cults do.

Some of the worst cults have a messianic leader – Jim Jones on Guyana; David Koresh, Branch Davidians; Charlie Manson; Shoko Asahara; Marshall Applewhite; Luc Jouret;  and Joseph Di Mambro; the list goes on and keeps growing. In recent times, we could easily add Osama Bin Laden of Al Qaida, Mullah Omar of the Taliban, the late Abubakar Shekau of Boko Haram currently replaced by Mahamat Daoud, Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah and now Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of ISIS (or ISIL of Daesh).

This is not a complete list and it seems to grow constantly. It is also not exclusively a Muslim membership, although Islam is the most recent religion hijacked for destructive cults these days. Followers of Charlie Manson believed he was the second coming of Jesus Christ. Jim Jones also used the Christian bible to entice members into his cult.

In 1984, Joseph Di Mambro and Luc Joret formed the Order of the Solar Temple based loosely on Rosicrucians and Knights Templar. They succeeded in convincing their followers that an environmental apocalypse was coming and to escape it members needed to be “transformed” by fire to ascend to a planet orbiting Sirius.

In 1997, the Prophet Marshall Applewhite of the Heavens Gate cult convinced its 39 members that the Hale-Bopp comet would bring a UFO to rescue them from the “end of times.” They all draped themselves in purple cloaks and drank poison believing they would be raptured.

Aum Shinriko was a cult formed in Japan during the ‘90s. They released deadly sarin nerve gas into a Tokyo subway tunnel in 1997. The group’s leader Shoko Asahra preached that the end of the world was near and his followers would be the only ones to survive.

The Daesh (ISIS/ISIL) cult has also convinced the followers of the caliphate that the apocalypse is imminent. They use Sharia law, which isn’t any sort of codified law, and only consists of what the Caliph and his henchmen say is the law, to intimidate, regulate, and in effect oppress their followers exactly like every other cult has throughout history.

The cult of the Daesh is not the Islamic faith nor is it consistent with the Quran any more than followers of Jim Jones or Charlie Manson were Christians following the tenets of the Bible.

It is always easy to paint groups with a wide brush, and maybe I have been guilty of this on occasion, but that doesn’t make it right. The cults that have perverted the Muslim religion do not represent or speak for that religion. They are a tragic aberration of an old and noble religion.

So, what do we do to protect our families and ourselves? Vigilance and, dare I say it, profiling. We know there are no Christians in ISIS. Don’t look for the next terrorist killings to come from people going to churches. We do know that ALL of the recent terror plots have originated from people who believed themselves Muslims.

Note, however, I did not say to judge them. Just because a person prays five times a day and goes to a mosque does not mean he or she is a terrorist. If they are stockpiling military style weapons, massive ammunition, and explosives, this could be a good indication of possible trouble. Alert the authorities. If they are spouting hateful doctrine against America or other religions, they might be worth having authorities investigate.

Again, note that I don’t advocate taking action against these people. Who knows, he or she might just be opinionated columnists.

Another Paris Tragedy

No, this tragedy wasn’t caused by Muslim terrorists. Although, our President believes the terrorists were created by climate change. Go figure…

The Global Conference on Climate Change in Paris this month is bound to produce more onerous restrictions on everyone, except the major polluters, China, Russia, and India. Beijing might actually do something about the “greenhouse gasses” if they could only read the reports through the smog. Most of the time seeing the full Golden Gate Bridge seems more likely than finding the Forbidden City in the smog.

The Kyoto Protocol – one that we have not officially signed on to – gave the United Nations sweeping authority over sovereign nations to fight “Global Warming” but conveniently left out developing nations as well as China and India while it called for draconian measures for the United States. Even though we have not officially agreed to the Kyoto Protocol, the left in this country are determined to apply the restraints to us anyway.

Obama used his pen to decimate the coal industry and in the mean time foist “green energy” on the populace. Here in California, where the Democrats run virtually everything, we are being forced to “cut back” on carbon use. The governor even wanted to force everyone to use fifty-percent less gas. Thankfully, even the Democrats realized that would be completely unworkable. But don’t relax just yet. I’m sure this will come up again in the not too distant future.

I could cite reams of evidence to rebuff the “scientific” data that surrounds the Climate Change issue (previously called Global Warming, but had to be changed when the warming didn’t materialize). Frankly, it doesn’t matter. The climate is in fact changing. It has changed for millennia, and will continue to change as long as the earth exists. The core of the issue is, do humans have the power to cause the climate to change – one way or the other?

I seriously doubt we could ever cause the climate to change in any direction. Otherwise, we would outlaw hurricanes, flooding, drought, blizzards, ice storms, and tornados and require the scientists to work their magic to relegate these plagues to history. But no government can do that because it is not within the human realm to change the weather. So, how could humans be so omnipotent to be able to cause bad weather when we can’t make good weather? Remember Mark Twain said, “Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” That’s because we can’t!

Greenhouse gasses? Sure, they exist. Without them, the earth would resemble the Martian landscape. Are we causing them? There is no doubt human activity contributes to these gasses. But there are many other factors that spew greenhouse gasses and cause the weather patterns on earth.

There are currently about fifty active volcanoes on the planet spewing out, guess what, greenhouse gasses! Is anyone at the Paris conference suggesting plugging up these gas generators? Oh, but that would not be feasible.

So why should humanity make radical and often unfeasible lifestyle changes just to keep from adding a very small percentage of gas to the already naturally occurring mass? And is it really about climate change?

I believe the whole fiasco is not about climate change but more about change. The mantra of the left is always “change.” It doesn’t seem to matter if that change is for the better or worse, just change. It is a badge of power to cause others to do what they would not naturally do. And no one wears that badge more proudly than the left.

But the Pope is advocating the climate change cause too. Pope Francis is a well-meaning person, but he is also an avowed socialist. He is causing wholesale changes in the Vatican and in the Catholic Church. Many of those changes are good and long overdue, but he is out of his league when he pokes his Miter into the realm of science.

The number-one promoters of Climate Change theories are the scientists carefully selected by and for the United Nations. That alone should tell us this agenda is more about power than climate. The UN continually works to undermine the sovereignty of its member nations. This is but the most recent example of that power quest.

The only change I am interested in is removing enough Democrats from power to put this nation back on a path to restoring the greatness and prestige it once had. The climate will do whatever nature deems it to do. We either accept that fact and adapt or join the dinosaurs in extinction. And that is probably the one solution not being discussed in Paris.