Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from 2018

An Historical Perspective on the terms used today

A very well thought out statement by Mark Levin on the Media's criticism of President Trump: SEAN HANNITY: Joining us now, he is the host of CRTV's Levin TV. The host of Life, Liberty, and Levin. Wow. You had big ratings this weekend right here on the Fox News Channel. I call him the great one, Mark Levin. We missed you a couple of weeks and we're glad you are back, my friend. Let's talk the election. MARK LEVIN: Thank you. Well, you know, it's time for we the people to stand up for ourselves, for our families, for our faith, for our country, for our party, and for our president. You know, the media had interposed themselves in this election, Sean. We're actually fighting the media. We're fighting the Democrats, we're fighting academia, we're fighting Hollywood and all the rest. And 64 percent of the voters say the press has done more to divide the country. More people think the press has divided the country than

Another test for conservatives

So I'm reading an article on Breitbart.com and I find myself in the same situation as with my last post.  I'm asking myself about Joel Pollack - do you consider yourself a Conservative?  If so, why are you criticizing this action and not praising it? The article is titled "'Justice Democrat' Ilhan Omar Argued Against Bill on Female Genital Mutilation."  Ms. Omar is Muslim, a Democrat, according to the author she is a Progressive, and she was recently elected to Congress in Minnesota.  The legislation in question was a Bill before the State Legislature. In classic John Kerry fashion Ms. Omar was against the bill before she voted for it. The author states Ms. Omar's "... stance on female genital mutilation (FGM) is anything but 'progressive.'”  Now here's the rub - he's completely right.  Her position on the legislation was not Progressive, it was Conservative!  Ms. Omar's stance on the legislation is described in Mr. Pollack&#

A Great Test for Conservatives

I find myself in the unpleasant position of having to agree with a Federal Court Judge who overturned a Federal law that makes genital mutilation of females unconstitutional.  Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a horrific practice employed by some members of the Muslim faith.  Congress passed a law making this a crime and a Judge in Detroit ruled that law unconstitutional and, based on a very limited review of the case, I agree with his reasoning.  This may be a good decision made in a bad situation. The situation was that a doctor in Michigan was arrested and charged with violating a Federal law that prohibits performing genital mutilation on young girls.  For the record, the attorney for the doctor is quoted as saying the physician did not do this.  But the issue at hand is whether the Federal law is Constitutional.  Here is the test for Conservatives - just because something is horrible does that give the Federal Government the right to regulate it? Let's look at the quote

My take on Amazon going to NY

I think Amazon going to NY is a good thing for a couple of reasons.  It should be good for NY and it should be good for America if elected officials recognize just what happened here.  Ironically, Jeff Bezos may end up the loser here. Amazon going to NY city is good for the city because it creates jobs.  Before there are the jobs with Amazon, there will be construction jobs building the Amazon location.  Then you can bet there will be other growth around that area creating more construction work.  There will be jobs for people to clean and maintain Amazon's building and any new surrounding buildings.  There will need to be jobs for people filling the vending machines in the Amazon building.  When the Amazon employees get tired of eating out of the machines, they will need restaurants and delis and pizza places.  The jobs story doesn't stop there.  Amazon ships stuff - a lot of stuff.  That means trucks and cars and planes and trains.  Those require people to run them and

Riddle me this...

Some random thoughts This morning I saw, for the first time, the advertisement by former Mayor Michael Bloomberg complaining about violence and division in the Country and calling on all Americans to vote Democratic to bring back peace and bipartisanship. Riddle me this Batman, what in the last two years leads Mayor Bloomberg to think a Democrat majority in either or both Houses of Congress will lead to peace and bipartisanship?  Was it the calls of Rep. Maxine Waters, Sen. Corey Booker, Hillary Clinton, and Eric Holder for people to get abusive toward Republicans?  Was it Nancy Pelosi's statements that if Democrats win the House then anyone who disagrees with them will be at best ignored and just become collateral damage for the next two years? A growing cry among Democrats is Medicare for all.  It was started by Senator Bernie Sanders and has been picked up by liberal Democrat candidates around the country. Riddle me this Batman, if Medicare is so great then why was does

Repealing ObamaCare equals no pre-existing condition coverage? Wrong!

Charges that a vote to repeal Obamacare is a vote to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions are completely wrong.  This is the latest campaign tactic by Democrats.  Unfortunately Republican's don't understand health insurance law well enough to point out why the Democrats are completely wrong. Between 2011 and 2016, Republicans voted 40 times to repeal ObamaCare.  The House voted again to repeal the law but the Senate did not, leaving ObamaCare in place.  Democrats charge that Republicans will allow "big insurance to go back to denying coverage for pre-existing conditions." (1) That allegation ignores many facts but it's surprising Republicans have done such a poor job responding.  Why is it not true? a) in 2017, the Republican bill to repeal ObamaCare included pre-existing condition protections. b) even if Congress just repealed ObamaCare and did not pass any new law, federal law would revert to what existed before.  That includes a law passed in 1996

The Violation of Professor Blasey Ford

I don't know what happened 30 years ago when Professor Blasey Ford was assaulted by someone but I know she was violated in 2018.  She had her experience of 30 years ago dragged into the public.  She was made to go before a circus event in the Committee hearing, and she received all kinds of threats and hate mail that she didn't deserve.  And I know who the culprits were that caused this - the Democrats.  Here's who I blame: 1. I place the blame first with Senator Diane Feinstein.  Professor Ford sent a letter in confidence to Senator Feinstein.  Professor Ford did not want to come public, she did not want to endure what she endured.  Now the Senator from California denies being the leaker but she was the one to whom Professor Ford sent the letter and in whom Professor Ford placed her trust.  Senator Feinstein breached that trust by not ensuring the confidentiality of that letter. 2. Blame falls next on whomever released the letter and there is only Party who can be blam

Justice Kavanaugh and the Burden of Proof

Innocent until proven guilty - President Trump called them beautiful words.  Democrats responded by saying that then Judge Kavanaugh was not in a court of law and that rule does not apply.  That's a true statement, the issue was not before a court of law but I'm not buying that argument. In this case the US Senate had a duty to decide a question - should Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the US Supreme Court be approved.  A key issue before them was whether he had committed sexual assault on women in his past.  Evidence was presented - both in the form of testimony by witnesses and a report from the FBI. The Senators then had to make a decision. So the question becomes what standard would you use to make the determination?  If it's not innocent until proven guilty then what?  Guilty until proven innocent? Beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, more likely than not; all of those are measures that are applied after you answer the first question -

Post Hurricane predictions

Here are my three predictions of what will happen after Hurricane Michael is done and people are assessing the aftermath. 1. There will be great damage, power outages all over, some loss of life, some people injured. 2. The damage,injuries and deaths will not be as great after Michael as they were in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria hit that island.  Plus power will be restored relatively quickly, certainly people will not be lacking power a year afterwards as is true in Puerto Rico. 3. People will say the reason things are better in Florida after Micheal than in Puerto Rico after Maria is because the population is predominantly white and President Donald Trump is a racist. To the people who say that the fact that the local officials in Florida were prepared while the Puerto Rico local officials were not has nothing to do with it. The fact that State officials in Florida were prepared while the territorial officials in Puerto Rico were not has nothing to do with it. The fa

The Speech President Trump Should Give on Immigration

This is the speech I'd write for President Trump - I think it's time he directly calls out the media.  They hate him so naming networks or papers won't do harm.  I do give credit because he did address some of these points in his recent presentation of the Angel Families. -------------------------------------------- Good evening.  I'd like to provide you with information about the immigration situation that the news media won't share with you.  And by news media, I'm calling out ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and MSNBC as well as major newspapers like the NY Times, the Washington Post, and Time magazine along with many other publications in their coverage of my Administration's efforts to enforce the existing laws prohibiting illegal immigration. Because of the stepped up enforcement, there has been a lot of talk about separation of families at the border.  I'm not happy about children being separated from their parents any more than anyone else, that's wh

School Safety, Gun Control and the March For Our Lives

I am in favor of measures that will ensure the safety of our schools and the children who attend them and for that reason I'm opposed to just about everything recommended by the students speaking at the March For Our Lives.  What they recommend will accomplish nothing to further safety in the schools while they ignore ideas that will work.  Furthermore, I find their bullying tactics of insulting and ridiculing on anyone who opposes their ideas deplorable. At the CNN Town Hall, the NRA spokesperson was called a murderer.  At the March For Our Lives event, US Senator Marco Rubio was labeled a "Kid Killer."  These high school kids are trying to portray themselves as the adults in the room but they are engaging in juvenile name calling that alienates people rather than bringing them together.  Do they really think they have a better chance of success attempting to insult and intimidate or is that really intended to promote themselves into more publicity? Then there are th

Some thoughts about Tariffs

If you don't like President Trump's tariffs give me a better alternative.  I've listened to the naysayers, the free marketers, and no one is suggesting China isn't subsidizing their companies to enable them to dump steel and aluminum at below market prices or enabling the theft of technology.  But I don't hear them offering any new ideas for enabling American companies to compete and for American workers to regain the quality jobs that go with these industries other than for our companies to compete better.  I do have an alternative to tariffs but it probably would not be enacted.  But before I get there let me start by poking holes in the arguments of the naysayers, including those who complain that the price of products will rise and consumers will be the losers here.  Let's start with the point on which I believe there is little disagreement.  We do need to do something about the trade imbalance and China.  China has been waging economic war on the United S

My Response to Joe Kennedy's Response

The speech by US Representative Joseph Kennedy III was remarkably divisive and partisan.  Rep. Kennedy misrepresented the President's comments while excluding the interests of a number of groups.  The irony is the goal of his speech was to say Democrats are uniters while it is Donald Trump and Republicans who are the divisive ones. Let's go down some of the points in Rep. Kennedy's speech.  He started by reflecting on some things that happened in the past year.  "A government that struggles to keep itself open."  Passage of a budget lies with Congress not with the Executive branch of government.  Furthermore, Democrats were equally to blame for the brief shutdown, providing no votes in the Senate initially to overcome the filibuster and pass a short term budget. "Russia, knee deep in our democracy."  Wait - didn't the Russian interference in our election happen during President Obama's Administration?  In fact, the Obama Administration had ha