Sunday, November 3, 2019

17th Amendment Repeal a Viable Alternative to Term Limits

Senator Mitch McConnell was asked. "What do you think about term limits?"

His answer. "You already have them!"


"You have them; every time that you go to the polls." The Senator said coyly.

The place was Eastern Kentucky University. It was 2012. Mitch McConnell was speaking on behalf of the EKU Future Business leaders. An audience member had asked what was on the tips of many tongues.

That the Senator failed to note the advantageous position generally held by incumbents was not surprising. Incumbents nearly always have more money. A challenger needs to have deep pockets, OR some serious patrons who will make up for the shortfall.

Democrats had reason to believe that 2014 might be their year. Their candidate, Alison Lundergan Grimes was a rising star in the Democratic Party. Funds were pouring in from California and the East, in support of her candidacy.

For a brief period, it had looked like Mitch might get a primary challenge. Then businessman, now Kentucky Governor, Matt Bevin was the Tea Party favorite. I recall getting a scathing note from one of their members, reminding me of mcConnell's alleged corruption.

I defended McConnell, stating that he might have negatives, but would have a better chance of defeating Grimes. Not that Mitch needed it! He reached into his war chest and soon, Bevin was an after thought!

In the general election, McConnell continued his generous use of resources to position Grimes as a "puppet for out of state special interests and "Bay area" liberalism. The election wasn't close.

When the Convention of States organizers came to Kentucky, they quickly realized that "terms limits" would be a non-starter. As one supporter phrased, "Mitch McConnell simply has too much power." Nobody here is interested in including term limits in the petition.


Fairly easy answer. How would Kentucky benefit from replacing the Senate Majority Leader, who happened to represent the Bluegrass state, with a freshman?

Arkansans faced that same quandary in the 1960's, with Wilbur Mills. He was anything but popular. People outside of Little Rock loathed him. But, he chaired the House Ways and Means Committee, controlling vast amounts of money. Did the state really want to replace him with a freshman?

I recall then Texas Governor, Rick Perry's rationale regarding term limits. "If Bureaucrats know that a politician is going to be term limited, they'll just wink at him and essentially stall until his term ends." In other words, term limits would not work UNLESS Bureaucrats were also term limited! Which, might not be a bad idea! But, it would be complicated.

A better solution might be to take Perry's suggestion that we abolish the 17th amendment. As in, allow the state Senates to select the state's federal Senators, which is the method the founders originally laid out.

At first glance, it sounds like an unpopular concept. No longer would U.S. Senators be elected in a direct primary. We would return to the way things used to be: The state Senates would make the call. Sounds less Democratic. Yet...

Benjamin Franklin used the analogy of "pouring hot tea into a saucer before drinking it."

America was founded as a Republic, lest we forget. The concept of allowing our state Senators to choose our federal Senators, goes hand in hand with retaining control at the state level. In other words, making it more difficult for out-of-state special interests to buy a Senate seat.

Three 2018 midterms come to mind: Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. All three states had Republican controlled Senates. Would Deb Stabenow, Sherrod Brown and Tammy Baldwin have won reelection in those states; if the decision had been made by those individual state Senates? Probably not!

What about Mitch McConnell?

Kentucky's state Senate has been Republican controlled for a while. My guess is, McConnell would skate along, without opposition. No small state is going to relinquish power voluntarily! But, if he were challenged, it would not be about who had the most money to spend!

Thus, those supporting term limits may want to pivot to a new strategy: "Repeal the 17th amendment." If handled as the founders intended, the pressure would shift to their incumbent state Senators, insuring that government remained closer to the people, as was intended.

Even though the verdict might be the same, it would be a verdict that was determined from within the state. Not outside.

Thursday, October 31, 2019

Democrats Impeachment Antics Could Lead to Civil War

Are the Democrats crazy?

What's happening at this moment is, to quote Dr. Alan Dershowitz, "Stalinist."

Trick or Treat!

The closed door proceedings currently taking place in a windowless Washington D.C. basement, are reminiscent of Antoli Rybokov's Glasnost thriller, "Children of the Arbat."

The setting is Moscow. The year is 1934. General Secretary, Joseph Stalin is flexing his muscles. Suddenly, fear is enveloping the Russian countrymen in a manner similar to a wet blanket in thirty degree weather. I shiver at the thought!

Yet, we have those in our own country who are relishing this moment. Maybe even embracing it! Now, they are moving to the next step: A coup against the American people. It starts with kicking out a duly elected president.

2016 was a surprise. To everyone! Especially those entrenched Washington elites. There would be no way that Trump could win. And, if he did, there was always "the insurance policy."

Nobody asked the question, "what if Hillary loses and the insurance policy proves inadequate?"

Well, we can always impeach the guy! Can't we?

There is a problem alright! That problem amounts to the people with the desire, and guns, absolutely love Donald Trump. Don't think for a second that an impeachment will end with quite acquiescement! It won't. Instead, we will see violence on this continent not seen in 155 years!

Here are the facts. The military is behind Trump. Homeland security is behind Trump. Law enforcement is behind the President. Most importantly, "armed America" is with Donald J. Trump.

In a recent National Rifle Association finding, it was discovered that there are roughly 312 million firearms in America that are accounted for! There are probably that many more unaccounted for. 90% of these firearms are in hands of 30% of the population. Get the picture!

Democrats need to quit trying to change the 2016 election outcome. They lost! Yes, it may be that Hillary Clinton received the most popular votes! But, she was soundly beaten electorally. So, if you don't like the electoral college system, propose a constitutional amendment and abolish it. Until then, shut the f...k up! It's over! Move on!

Democrats need to wait just a short 53 weeks and they can defeat Donald Trump at the polls. That isn't that long, if you think about it. So why all these divisive, marginally illegal hearings?

Maybe it's because the party knows that it's going to lose in 2020. The Democratic party is hopelessly compromised. There is no longer the party of Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy or even Bill Clinton. They're history. At best, today's party is reminiscent of Britain's contemporary Labor Party. At worst, it has a Stalinist hue.

Meanwhile, the American economy is humming. People are feeling it! More money in their pockets. New cars in their garages. Who would want to return to the "Great Recession?"

Old habits die noisily! So... Do Dems want to try to impeach this president? If so they could nullify all gains made over the past 50 years! Take a moment to reflect on this question...

Here's what will happen. The left will be beaten horrifically. It would be a whipping that will later be described as the worst that recorded warfare has had to share! Thousands, if not millions, would no longer be with us. Including some dead Congressmen!

Nancy Pelosi would be sipping Chardonnay from the porch of her Lucerne mansion, provided that she could slip out of the country unscathed. More than likely her San Francisco bayfront mansion would have guests sipping wine too; from Nancy's private wine cellar.

Adam Schiff might not be so lucky! It's probable that he would become acquainted with a "blow torch and a pair of pliers."

Sanctuary cities would be encircled by little mounds. Planted atop of these mounds would be signs reading, "here lie the Communist traitors." Previously, they were known as "ANTIFA." That was before those "deplorables" from "fly over America" got ahold of them!

The "great reckoning" as they would later call it, would right many wrongs in America. Starting with taking Harry S. Truman's advice and precluding federal workers from unionizing.

Currently, the average federal worker earns 70% more than their private sector counterparts; with better benefits and job security.
For those Article Fivers pushing for a balanced budget amendment, this will get us there; in much quicker and less painful fashion. It amounts to taking Ronald Reagan's positioning statement literally: "reduce the cost of government."

In the end, America would cleanse itself. Defacto Communism would be expunged from the continent. California would undergo an "1869 style" Reconstruction. Voter fraud would be virtually eliminated. Bias would disappear from college campuses. Health care would be less expensive and more available. Real environmental policies would be in place.

Do Democrats want to go there? I don't think so! If they are lucky, they will simply lose the house and watch their executive hopes go out in Elizabeth Warren splendor.

The alternative would be quite unpleasant.

Saturday, October 12, 2019

S.E.C. "Pod System" Would Enhance Overall Experience

Very recently a "POD System" introduced an alternative to divisions in the S.E.C. I thought that it merited study.

The conference does have fixed rivalry games that fans want to continue. Yet, other than one fixed opponent from the other division, you don't see the other side of the conference too often. Today, Arkansas will visit Lexington for the first time since 2008. L.S.U. has never been to Columbia, Missouri.

The proposal incorporates all schools into one 14-team league. Top two teams play in the S.E.C. Championship game. Three "Annuals" play every year. This is the "POD." The remaining ten schools appear every two years.

More on the POD System shortly. There is another "politically doable" idea that may merit some discussion.

University President and former U.S. Senator, David Boren has expressed restlessness with the Big Twelve and their inability to expand from the current ten teams. It is entirely possible that when the next round of league expansions come, Oklahoma will be in every conversation.

The S.E.C. looks to be the ideal solution! There are currently fourteen teams. Adding O.U. and "little brother," Oklahoma State would put the "Sooner" state in a form of low level hysteria! With few exceptions, it might solve the "must play rival" issue simultaneously!

I recall chatting, one-on-one with the late Frank Broyles, during a basketball practice at Barnhill Arena, two weeks after the announced conference change in 1991. Broyles said that the preference was to place Vanderbilt in the West and Auburn in the East. "But Hootie Ingram(then A.D. at Alabama)insisted that Auburn must remain in the same division as Alabama."

When I described the newly proposed SEC West as the "blood and guts division, " and the East as the "powder puff division," Broyles countered, "The East will be tougher in Basketball."

The legendary football coach admitted his disdain for "eight and not seven" annual conference games.

Would Coach Broyles approve of the two Oklahoma schools joining the S.E.C.? I honestly don't know!

The split would amount to OU and OSU joining Arkansas, L.S.U.,Missouri, the Mississippi schools, and A&M,

The current eight-game conference season would remain in effect. Each school would play the remaining eight schools "twice in sixteen years." Unless, of course, they met in the SEC championship.

What might prove interesting is if Basketball elected to go "double round robin" in divisional games and "single round robin" for non-divisional opponents. That would result in a 22-game conference slate. Add a sixteen team tournament and you "are going to see a lot of each other!"

Oklahoma isn't a huge media market. From a television standpoint, it represents an expensive cost-per-point! OU will typically deliver a larger audience than the Dallas Cowboys! OSU is not slouchy!

Thus, the two Oklahoma schools would bring a rabid fan base and a relatively small number of TV households to the conference. Both have successful basketball programs. One competes for the football national championship most years.

In adding the Oklahoma schools, the SEC would be extending it's footprint, albeit not in a huge way. From the standpoint of adding two quality programs, it would be a "home run."

Still, I am not certain if I like this idea! A school like Arkansas would find itself more central to its opponents. Four of the eight schools, were part of the original Big 12 in 1992. Interestingly enough, Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma and A & M were all Charter members of the Southwest Conference when it was originally founded in 1914.

L.S.U.'s response would be interesting. That the Mississippi Schools, Arkansas and A&M are old rivals, is good. The two biggest losses, Alabama and Auburn would be replaced with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Florida would disappear from the every year slate. Not too many Tiger tears would be shed over that!

I don't think Kentucky's fans would be enthusiastic about replacing Missouri and Mississippi State with Alabama and Auburn! Auburn fans could live with replacing L.S.U. and A & M with Tennessee and Florida.

In the end, some schools would come out more favorably than others. Yet is there any idea that would truly make everyone happy?

The POD system provides access to places fans want to travel! Don't forget, we are talking about a cultural zone! Many fans plan their vacations around S.E.C. football road games. It comes down to football and more.

The S.E.C. has some neat destinations! And, there are super neat places near those destinations!

I have a friend from Louisiana who contends that we should get rid of the common "opponent in the other division." He thinks "rotate two teams every year." This way, "any student athlete who stays four years could have a chance to play everyone at least once."

Rivalry games such as Alabama-Tennessee or Georgia-Auburn would simply not count as a conference game, assuming that the schools chose to continue their annual series.

Definitely some alternatives!

While, the POD System brings many advantages, it may be a difficult sell. In all too many instances, you'd hear, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it! That would be my prediction.

Regarding expansion, it may never happen. I would bet against it. Nobody wants to divide up the money! It might be possible to see Auburn move to the East and Missouri to the West. Outside of that, likely nothing. It looks like we're set.

Monday, September 30, 2019

A.A.'s Should be Furious with Democrats, Neo-Cons

The first noticeable distinction between 2016 and 2019 is the number of new cars now occupying the roadways.

The second noticeable distinction between 2016 and 2019, are the increased numbers of black faces greeting you when you drive through a McDonalds, walk into a Kroger or enter a bank.

In essence, people who were looking in from the outside in '16, are now in the middle of things. Working! And, working for companies that provide benefits and longevity.

True, there are the cynics, who find disfavor in everything. Yet the fact that more Americans are working today than ever, can't be slighted! I hear the naysayers now. They called it "trickle down economics." As in, the rich get richer and the poor get the "crumbs." That was Nancy Pelosi's description.

Amazingly, even Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, the two leading "progressive" candidates vying for the right to face Donald Trump in 2020, have deleted a major point. They have talked about the rich getting richer. But, they have been vague as to "how" the rich have gotten richer.

Here's a tip: The President's "American First" agenda is about, "charity beginning at home." In short, take care of Americans first!
This translates to using every means possible to encourage American companies to keep their plants and factories within our shores.

Neo-Cons, such as Mitt Romney, Carly Fiorina and the late John McCain described themselves as "free traders." Which translates to, "the best jobs are those that can be outsourced."

The border crisis hasn't been solved, but is solvable. It's about "having the will" to solve it. Neither Progressives or Neo-Cons have showed must interest in a solution. Why should they? For Progressives it's about new voters. For Neo-Cons, it's about cheap labor. Never mind "who" in America gets hurt by this posture!

When you push for open borders, you hurt Americans at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Traditionally, these Americans are black and brown. You do it by depressing the wage. When you have people slipping into the country, living in the shadows and accepting less for their labors, this is the result.

We're not exclusively talking about Eight-dollar-per-hour jobs! I recall my wife's friend's husband sharing a poignant story that exemplified "why" Corporate CEO's tend to be so wealthy.

"Roger," a $46,000 per year technician working in Hewlett Packard's Sacramento office, was called in one Friday.

His boss related, "I have some good news and some bad news, Roger. The bad news is that your job's being outsourced to India. The good news is that you'll be able to stay on six months; to train your Indian replacement."

Bad news! But, it could have been worse!

In the following weeks Roger learned that his Indian counterpart would be paid $9800 per year. This represented a significant savings for the company. As then CEO, Carly Fiorina phrased, "it's about acknowledging that ours is a global economy and we must make the necessary adjustments."

Donald Trump came on the scene and immediately saw the fallacies in the Trans Pacific Partnership. For Fortune 500 companies, it brought greater access to sweatshop East Asian labor. That it might compromise the American worker, well...

I recall a friend from J.P. Morgan Chase who whispered, "you see all the empty cubicles. These used to house 35k per year Universal Bankers. But why pay that when someone in the Philippines will do the same job for $7,000 per year?

I can't spite Warren or Sanders too much for their slip up. Neither are business people. They talk about increasing disparity of incomes. But has either come out with proposed legislation that would include, but not be limited to, a "prodigious outsourcing tax" for these American companies who choose to take their jobs offshore?

This China trade war is really not a trade war. It's about punishing American companies who elected to move their plants to Mainland China. Here they have been able to take advantage of the Totalitarian Chinese Government, the docile Chinese population and slave labor conditions. It does make for a better bottom line!

What mystifies me is "why" our mainstream media has not brought all of this to the nation's attention! Maybe it's because they too, are "globalists," caring little for their countrymen.

Even more baffling is why especially Black Americans have not seen through it! You look at long term Congressional members, Maxine Waters and Elijah Cummings then look at how people live in their districts. Then you ask, "how" can their constituents keep electing them! Stokely Carmichael once posed this question.

In short, they can hate Donald Trump with every ounce of vigor in their soul. He never promised that he was going to be their "buddy." What he has done is stood up for them; against Democrats advocating open borders and depressed wages and Neo-Cons seeking to siphon off their prosperity to a foreign country.

It thoroughly pisses me off! And I am not even Black!

Monday, September 23, 2019

Healthcare Deal Possible with Compromise

No topic has drawn more discussion or scrutiny than the nations Health Insurance crisis!

Notice I did not say, "health care" crisis. Why should I? We already have the finest health care in the world!The issue is with insurance.

The "Affordable Health Care Act," AKA Obamacare, brought more people into the family. But, it fell woefully short of it's goal. There are entirely too many people still not covered. Many have watched their premiums skyrocket, their deductibles jump ridiculously.

There are winners and losers with Obamacare.

I know a family of three, previously not covered, that qualified for better than $20,000 in free health care. Not a cent out of their pocket! Another family of four, watched their deductibles climb to $5000, their monthly premium shoot from $400 during W's last year in office to more than $900 in 2016.

I recall hearing from this woman, a part time Realtor for Keller Williams singing "hey, hey the witch is dead. Which ole witch, the wicked witch." You recall that iconic song from the Wizard of Oz. She was singing it the day after Hillary Clinton's defeat.

Trump's plan ran off the rails, thanks in part to John McCain. The newly elected President never was in sync with then Speaker, Paul Ryan. In retrospect, he would have been better off tabling health care until after the tax swap.

One problem is that we are paying entirely too much for pharmaceuticals. Even worse, is that many of our political leaders are receiving monetary help from "big Pharm." Nobody likes to bite the hand that feeds them. Unfortunately, it opens the door for corruption. Herein lies the dilemma.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren advance their aspiration for "Medicare for all." In theory, we do have a rich nation and probably can afford to provide something for everyone. But, there will be conditions. And restrictions. Neither Warren or Sanders want to go there.

So, we are back to square one. Is there some middle ground here? And could this middle ground be found that utilized capitalism and the free market to bring the cost of good healthcare to affordable levels?

Maybe. But, it would require a compromise. Any real compromise will result in neither party being totally happy. That's why they call it a compromise. So here goes! And, I guarantee you! Neither Republican or Democrat will be overly thrilled...

The starting point is "pre-existing conditions." All of the Democrats and the majority of Republicans are together on the need to protect Americans with pre-existing conditions.

The watchwords are "it could be me." For those who have faced insurance companies and been doomed to impossible costs know! Half of the bankruptcies in America are Medical BK's.

This brings us to the proposal: "What IF we designated a national sales tax, perhaps as little a "on-fourth of one cent," and used it to establish a "Catastrophic pool." The "pool" would be unavailable until an annual claim reached $10,000. It could be one claim, or cumulative claims.

Upon reaching $10,000, "80% of subsequent claims total would be covered," leaving the insured with a "20% co-pay." This would climb to 85%, when an annual claim/claims reached $50,000 and cap at 90% when the claim/claims hit $100,000.

So total cumulative claims of $13,800 would qualify for $3,040 from the Catastrophic pool. $65000 in annual cumulative claims would yield $44,750 from the pool.

We currently have 1300 insurance companies nationwide. This number would increase dramatically. The consumer would be allowed to cross state lines, as they do with auto insurance. "Aflac like" companies selling inexpensive "Cat Pool" supplemental policies would appear overnight.

I can hear the moans and groans from both sides!

Democrats will say(correctly) that this was a "regressive tax." Proportionally, "more of the burden will fall upon the poor."

Republicans will say(correctly) that "this is universal health care." Besides! "Can we trust the federal government with such a money pot?"

All concerns are valid. Let's address the last one first. Clearly noted stipulations prohibiting any Cat-Pool monies drawn out for other needs would be an imperative! In other words, "no borrowing from Peter to pay Paul!"

Regarding the "regressive tax on the poor" argument, remember this: The poor will still be buying beer, cigarettes and eating at McDonalds! So if a Big Mac, French fries, a pie and a milkshake, come to $10, the buyer will have contributed 2.5 cents to the pool.
Smart money says, "they won't miss it!"

Meanwhile, new insurance companies will be popping up all over the place! For the typical American family seeking a "80-20 co-pay featuring a $500 deductible for $150 per month," they'll be in luck! A family in Waynesville, North Carolina might ultimately contract with Sun Valley Health Insurance of Pocatello, Idaho. But so what? It's about shopping for the best deal.

This would be possible BECAUSE the "Cat-Pool" will serve as a backstop in the event of a large claim. So the small Idaho based company can offer inexpensive policies to middle class American families, without the worry of a few large claims putting them out of business.

Americans with pre-existing conditions would have protection. There would be companies offering not so good deals to cover the first $10,000. And, there would always be the option to self insure. Especially if the insured was a Cancer survivor, was
taking nitroglycerine or something equated with high risk.

Of course, there will be losers. The large insurance companies will ultimately become reinsurance companies, working on a lower margin. I recall a Blue Cross-Blue Shield representative in Indianapolis telling me that their profit margin was something around 12%. That's pretty lucrative!

What about the Pharmaceutical companies? Why ARE we paying damn near twice as much as the rest of the world?

Hate Trump or love him, he IS trying to address this problem. Democrats need to join him. Forget about who gets credit! We need this to happen and happen now!

Would "1/4 of a penny" tax be enough? Not certain. But, it would be a starting point.

Bottom line with this idea is, "Republicans could say that they drastically lowered health care costs for all Americans including those with pre-existing conditions." Democrats could accurately attest to the fact that they delivered on their goal of "Universal Health Care" for all of the country.

In the end, not perfect but fair.

Sunday, September 22, 2019

Medicinal Cannabis Here to Stay. What Next?

I agree wholeheartedly with the President. The disposition of Recreational Marijuana should be decided at the state level. Read the 10th amendment.

Recently I spoke with Kentucky State Representative, Travis Brenda about why he opposed legalizing medicinal Marijuana. His comments reflected sincere concern. But, they sounded like they had been prepared by former Education secretary, Bill Bennett.

There is a haunting misnomer that Marijuana is and always has been, a "gateway drug." It is. But, in a different way than most perceive.

In the states that have not already legalized Cannabis, one must get it through the black market. As expected, the black market is what it implies: a source whereby illegal substances may be procured. As in, "anything goes!"

People trying to buy Marijuana through such a source can generally find other "controlled substances, ranging from Meth, Heroin and Cocaine" to name a few. A black market source can often place a seeker in touch with the requested supplier.

Take Marijuana away from this black market source and the distribution channel is altered. In the seventies, they referred to this guy as a "stash sharer." He would buy a pound of pot, sell off three fourths, keeping the remaining quarter for himself. The result: His weed was free.

With legalization, the "stash sharer" is all but eliminated. Most users opted to buy their smoke at dispensaries. Those too poor or too cheap to buy it from a dispensary, grow it themselves. You might say, the "stash sharer" has become an anachronism in states that have legalized Recreational Cannabis.

Medicinal is legal in 28 states and counting. And, for good reason! It's a proven remedy for nausea. Not to mention migraines, glaucoma and even excessive stress! What a lot of people don't know is that it's been used medicinally for ages! In fact, Marijuana in general wasn't criminalized until 1937.

So, what's the issue with those still opposed to legalizing medicinal? Actually, it's pretty simple: "They seek to not bite the hand that feeds them!"

Show me a politician who opposes medicinal legalization but accepts campaign contributions from Pharmaceutical companies and I will show you corruption. There is simply no other way to express it!

A close friend who recently had stomach surgery complained that ONLY Cannabis brought relief to the accompanying nausea. But, when he tried to find it, he quickly learned that his state, Tennessee didn't allow Medicinal. The guy was a securities dealer and as straight as an arrow and as vanilla as Mr. Rogers!

What did he do? His secretary hooked him up on the black market. My friend didn't want to go this route! He admittedly resented being presented with such a quandary! As he confessed, "I am no pot smoker! I hardly drink! But, damn it! It brings relief like nothing else(The doctor had previously prescribed a number of different drugs. None brought relief).

"Anyone who opposes legalization of medicinal Cannabis," my friend added, "is either dogmatic, sadistic or both!" His doctor concurred.

Sadly for this gentlemen and countless others, there are those "Sadist-Dogmatics" who do exist! Former U.S. Attorney General, Jeff Sessions was typical.

As earlier stated, I believe that the decision to legalize recreational Marijuana should be left up to the states. However, the question of making Medicinal legal in all 50 states should be done.

Nancy Pelosi has the votes, both in the House and the Senate. The President will sign it. Why she hasn't already introduced legislation is political.

Colorado's Republican Senator, Cory Gardner is up for reelection. He is a proponent of such legislation. If a bill legalizing Medicinal at the Federal level were to pass, he would be largely credited for it.

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Article Five Convention Could Save America

Our founding fathers were insightful guys!

From the outset, there was always a lurking fear that the government that they were creating might someday get away from the people that it was supposed to serve. Sadly that day has come.

I have attended "Convention of States" meetings. I have read carefully their positions. Most, if not all, I support.

For those not familiar, here is the skinny: We need 34 states to agree to hold a convention. But first, we must define the stark distinction between an Article Five convention and a Constitutional Convention. It's confusing!

In an Article Five Convention, the states "pre-set conditions within the existing structure." In a constitutional convention, it's more about "rewriting the government outside the existing structure."

I have heard horrible predictions by noteworthy people, regarding the dangers of a Constitutional convention. It amounts to anything can happen, depending on "who" is most influencing the convention.

An Article Five Convention poses fewer surprises. 34 states meet and make alterations within the existing structure.

Co-founder, Michael Ferris explains the distinction. The objectives are,

Reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government.
Fiscal restraint through a balanced budget amendment.
Enacting term limits for elected federal officials, including Supreme Court Justices.

Thus far, 15 of the needed 34 states have signed on.

When I attended a rally held in Frankfort, Kentucky it became painfully apparent Kentucky was not going to be an easy addition. Many in attendance who otherwise supported the measures, didn't like the idea of term limiting a Kentucky Senator, who had made his way to Majority leader!

There are others who are saying, "no so fast," when it comes to a balanced budget amendment!

In short, while the proposed measures gather justified support, the question becomes, "can we ever expect to gain participation from the required 34 states?

Here is a thought. "What if we focused on some critical issues that would address some current stalemates in Washington?"

Such as,

+- Making English official language in the U.S.
+- Mandating that ONLY American Citizens are allowed to vote
+- Requiring that all voters present photo identification at a polling center. No "ballot harvesting." Any absentee ballot would need to be applied for at the county clerk's office thirty days prior to the election.
+- Congressional Representation would be based of U.S. Citizens, not persons. When the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as an "American Citizen." You were a citizen of the state you resided.
+- Birthright citizenship would be defined as "any person born in the U.S. who was previously engaged in involuntary servitude or who had no previous status."
+- Chain Migration would be defined as "an immediate family member only."

I have no doubt that we can get 34 states to agree to these specifications!

Make no mistake! There should be discussion regarding reducing the size and scope of the federal government. Term limits should be on the table! And we must get our fiscal house in order! Yet, can we do these things before it's too late!

For skeptics, take a look at California! Facts are facts! We are running out of time!

America stands at a crossroads! We can "swing for the fences," hoping to hit a home run. Or, we can play "small ball," temporarily settling for singles and doubles.

It begins with returning control of the country to American citizens.

Sunday, September 8, 2019

Green New Deal May Run Through Russia- Part II

Last month, I posted what some might consider a preposterous idea: "Working with Russia to reduce global carbon emissions."

In fairness, there might be an insightful few who would ask, "Even if we offered to foot the tab, could we honestly trust Putin to do his part?"

To fully gain a valid answer, one merely needs to place themselves in Putin's, and most Russians' shoes for an instant. Their predicted response would be, "could we trust the Americans who were making such a proposal?"

Which brings us to their next question: "Which Americans?"

Russian intelligentsia concludes correctly that there are two Americas, vying for power and control in the United States. They have identified the two factions as "faith based, national populists," who are backing the President, and "secular, global socialists," who oppose him.

To do anything with the United States amounts to knowing "which" America that you are negotiating with.

Did the Russian leadership favor Trump's election. Yes, but for different reasons than most American media elites will acknowledge.

Contrary to popular opinion, Putin and his inside circle, are not the Communists. In fact, they are the opponents of the Communists in Russia.

Since 1993 Gennady Zyuganov had been the leader of the Russian Communist Party. Last year, the 73-year-old Zyuganov announced that he would not oppose Putin in the upcoming election. Instead, he was passing the mantle to 57-year-old Pavel Grudinin, who ran and lost.

The background of Pavel Grudinin is a separate topic for a different post. But, it should be noted that Zyuganov and Grudinin are friends with John Brennan, who served as C.I.A. Director under Barack Obama.

Putin and Associates see the commonalities between Donald Trump's opponents and their own. They see Trump as a Nationalist, which makes him both a more difficult negotiator, but easier to figure.

Putin is also a Nationalist. He loves Russia and doesn't have a problem with Trump's "America first" ideology. If anything, he admires Trump for making a point of it!

As one Putin surrogate phraised, "Putin is "nash ceela moosheena."(Our strong man) Trump is "vash ceela moosheena."(Your strong man).

Most recall the almost fanatical fixation Trump's opponents and Democrats held when Trump met with Putin in Helsinki. Some even wanted to interrogate the translator!

The fear is simple: "Trump and Putin might just cut a deal, that would derail their globalist agenda permanently."

It's a foregone conclusion that Putin would be willing to cut a deal with Trump. And Trump would be willing to "lock in granite" any deal that was favorable to Nationalist America.

Putin would see a "green new deal" instigated by Trump as an opportunity to work out other differences. Starting with Russian return to the G-7. Trump has already hinted that he thinks it's a good idea, while admitting that Putin might be too proud to embrace such an overture.

Then comes the new "Start" treaty, followed by the lifting of sanctions and the recognition of Crimean annexation. Neo-Cons, most Democrats and of course, the mainstream media, would likely experience convulsions!

Calls for impeachment would dominate the airwaves!

Yet, there would be an unanswered question: "What would the President get in return?"

Putin is nobody's fool! He would know that to gain those concessions, he would need to offer something in return. The idea of global carbon emission reduction would not be unwelcomed. In fact, it would be the foundation for something much bigger.

Let's start with Russia, Ukraine and Georgia becoming part of N.A.T.O. Unbeknownst to most, this was the secret want a decade ago. It could still happen. Could it happen? Those former Warsaw Pact nations would oppose it. Primarily because they didn't then and still don't trust the Russians. The rest of Europe could see logic behind peaceful relations throughout the continent.

Russians have made it clear that they were interested in "integrating, not submitting" to N.A.T.O. This would be a giant step. They would know that to gain such statue, there would need to be serious concessions.

Starting with peace in Eastern Ukraine, allowing Ukraine total access to the Sea of Azov. There would be Russian withdrawal of troops from the Transdneistria region of Moldova, allowing Ukraine to access this "Delaware sized" strip of Moldova, while allowing Moldova to reunite with Romania.

Russia would join the U.S. in mandating to Kim Jong Un, that "nuclear options would not be allowed on the peninsula."

Russia would exit the Western Hemisphere, abandoning Soviet vintage allies, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

Russia would even help the United States establish an independent Kurdistan in Kurd held provinces, jointly committing to a condition of religious freedom for all.

It would be called, "an exchange of ideas." To insure that neither side regressed, America would adopt Russia's gender standards. Russia would adopt America's federal land bank. More on both in a future post.

Meanwhile, America's current emission standards would not only be adopted by Russia, but adopted, under the threat of sanctions, by China and India. In reality, this is the only "New Green Deal that will be a New Green Deal."

The bald truth about A.O.C. and friends version of the Green New Deal is that it won't work. But, reduction of carbon emission isn't the objective.

Simply put, it's about "recreating the Soviet Union in America." Nothing more. Nothing less.


It's called "power." THEIR power! It is incomprehensible the absolute power that A.O.C. and friends would gain, if they forced their Marxists agenda upon the well intended, but feckless American mainstream.

That the mainstream media would advocate such a ruse is inexcusable. But, they are part of it. Never forget this.

Monday, September 2, 2019

Immigration Debate Fraught with Demagoguery

Immigration remains a hot topic for much of America. Most disquieting is how much "demagoguery" has slipped into the discussion!

At the center is "birthright citizenship." Over the decades, the idea that "if you were born in the U.S., you were automatically a citizen," was strategically spawned. Yet, in returning to that 1868 Reconstruction Congress and examining the actual intentions of the authors, a different meaning becomes plainly evident.

Two groups were included. "People who had been previously engaged in involuntary servitude." And, "people born in the U.S., who held no previous status." That's it! No other groups were included. No outside circumstances were considered.

Case in point: The Native American did not gain citizenship until 1924. Case closed!

Chain Migration is a bit more subjective. Was it intended for immediate family members only? Or, were extended families afforded the same inclusion?

Herein lies part of our nation's emerging "clash of perceptions."

Two points of view: (a) Open borders, anyone can come and bring along their distant relatives. (b) We should be more selective with whom we allow into the country, because half the planet would love to be here.

Those supporting "A" are quick to call "B" supporters, "racists."

Those supporting "B" respond in saying, "we need immigrants who can immediately assimilate and contribute; not
jump on the entitlement rolls!"

In 2008, then Louisiana Senator, David Vitter introduced legislation that would base Congressional representation on "U.S. citizens and not persons." To the average American, this amounted to nothing more than "semantics." A deeper look acknowledged that if adopted, California would lose six house seats, New York two and Illinois one. Nine different states would gain seats.

What does the Constitution say?

It says "persons." Because, at the time of it's writing, there was no such thing as a U.S. Citizen. You were a citizen of your state. Many U.S. residents held citizenship in another country as recently as 1900.

Senator Vitter's proposed legislation never made it out of committee. Yet, there remains strong support for it's adoption. So strong that if advocates of an Article Five Convention were smart, they would make this measure their top initiative! I have no doubt that the necessary 34 states would vote to adopt this standard!

Perhaps this is where our immigration discussion needs to begin. The United States was always meant to be a "melting pot." Not a "salad bowl!" We are a nation of immigrants. We need immigrants. The question becomes, "do we want immigrants who want to adopt our culture?" Or, "are we looking for immigrants who want to bring their culture to our shores?"

Hence our "clash of perceptions!'

Most disturbing is how one side, when sensing that they are losing the argument, readily turns to "racism" as the true position held by the other side. This is the worst kind of demagoguery!

Our country is unique. Most of us can claim ancestry that came from another land, seeking something better. In doing so, we have founded the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Those who disagree, probably don't need to be here.

Oops! I recently recall the current President suggesting something along those lines. He was called everything from a bigot to racist to a NAZI to a white supremacist!

From childhood, I recall a popular assertion: "America. Love her or leave her!" Never heard was the cry of "racist or bigot or NAZI or White Supremacist!"

My, how things have changed!

Maybe it's because there is an agenda behind this belief that it's okay to trash out country. Perhaps there are those who are inwardly embarrassed by our success as a nation. I do recall a previous president rushing to Europe to launch an "apology tour."

What I still can't fathom is "what was he apologizing for?" Saving it from Hitler?

When seen in this light, a new question emerges: "Are those who prescribe to position "A" the true fascists?" Jonah Goldberg thought so! In his book, "Liberal Fascism," he revealed a chilling hint that through political correctness, AKA "Cultural Marxism," those proponents of position "A" would ultimately squelch all opposition.

Sound familiar?

Riding point in this discussion is Immigration.

Should we open our borders and allow anyone who can make it here entry? Should these "newcomers" be afforded the right to participate in elections? Should they gain access to entitlement rolls?"

The "A" camp would proclaim, "absolutely, positively, definitely."

The "B" camp proposes that immigration be "merit based." Or, in the words of the current House Speaker, a plan to "white-a-size" America.

Is there no end in sight?

Sunday, August 18, 2019

Green New Deal Runs Through Russia

Forget about A.O.C.'s Green New Deal! It is a ruse; a wily effort to slip Communism through the back door!

The Soviet Union controlled their population by essentially impoverishing them. In grounding, disarming and making Americans Vegans, the A.O.C. crowd will have done the same to their countrymen.

Make no mistake! This Green New Deal is about certain people gaining power. Real concerns are irrelevant.

Case in point: Many communities in rural America do not have access to clean drinking water, thanks to outdated infrastructure. The Government Accountability Office estimates that the costs of remedying the looming water crisis might take $190 billion in the decades to come.

Being forced to follow through with the Obama plan; to cut gas greenhouse emissions 80% by 2050 came with a price tag of $5.3 trillion dollars, per Columbia Business School economist, Geoffrey Heal. There would obviously been little money remaining for clean drinking water in rural America!

In truth, Obama's plan amounted to an excuse to push a Socialist, Globalist agenda. According to Heal, the plan would have had a marginal, if any effect on global temperatures!

Global temperatures have been rising and falling for eons. During the Minoan Warm Period,1300-1000 B.C., the Earth was about five degrees Celsius warmer than today's average. Today, Earth's temperatures are comparable to the Roman era. When Columbus was discovering the New World, we were probably three degrees cooler than today. That period was known as the "Little Ice Age."

Billions have been spent on research. Yet Government funded scientists have ignored evidence that global warming has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions.

This is the real problem! As carbon emissions go, we do have a problem. But, fixing the problem doesn't amount to destroying American prosperity. We already ARE the example for the rest of the world! And don't bring up our pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord! That amounted to "trusting" the United Nations with 100 million of our dollars. I don't think so...

Here are the facts about bringing about a real Green New Deal: We must forced China and India to comply. In essence, we must successfully pressure them to adopt our standard. And that won't happen. Unless, we have help...

From Russia? Are we kidding ourselves. Russia has nearly as bad of an environmental record as the Soviet Union had. How could they be anything but a nuisance, if not a deterrent?

When I first visited Russia in 1998, I was astounded to learn that the average life expectancy for Russian men was but 57! Medical sources cited the fact that 70% of Russian men smoked cigarettes, often of the highest nicotine content. Then there was the inexpensive, often preferred beverage of choice: Vodka! Today, most of those in power during Gorbachev's years are six feet under.

Gradually these old Soviet types are being replaced by the "Children of Perestroika;" those in middle and high school during Gorbachev's time. These Russians have lived for the most part with computers, cell phones and world access. Many are noticeably embarrassed with the nations' recent environmental record.

In short, America will eventually need to come to terms with Russia on a number of key issues. This might be the starting point. If we come up with a plan that we can adopt; and that amounts to American financial help for Russia to implement our emission standards, it's probable that we will gain immediate European support. At that point, our "New Green Alliance" can pretty much mandate the plan to the rest of the planet. That's the real "New Green Deal!"

The biggest opponents will likely be 70's and 80's Vintage Cold Warriors still in power, who are stuck in Gorbachev's day. Their Soviet/Russian counterparts have already passed. Now, we must either vote them out of office, or wait for them to retire, or die.

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Pelosi's Posture Assuring Trump's 2020 Re-election?

Nancy Pelosi is an vain, egotistical 79-year-old woman; the proverbial "poster girl" as to why we need congressional term limits.

Through the past week, never once was it mentioned that Donald Trump receive 306 electoral college votes in the 2016 election. Nor was it admitted that Pelosi represents one of the most "far left fringe" congressional districts in America.

Two nights ago, my wife issued a startling metaphor: She called Robert Mueller "Stalin."

This came on the heels of another metaphor: "CNN is America's Pravda."

Interesting that such an assertion would come from someone who spent her first 25 years in the former Soviet Union. Unfortunately, it is more fact than fantasy!

When I speak to friends from Alaska to Florida, from California to Maine(as I have done during in the past two weeks), it seems that literally EVERYONE favors building not simply a barrier, but a serious border wall that will inhibit traffic. I found one person, a 26 year-old-male who lived at home with his mother, who said that a wall "didn't feel right."

Yet, "polls" say otherwise. But who are these respondents? Perhaps they are they same the respondents who had Hillary Clinton winning by 7 to 14 points, the day before the 2016 presidential election.

Yesterday, Louisiana Senator, Bill Cassidy noted that "four billion dollars" had been apprehended from Mexican drug cartels in 2018. "There is the money for the wall." said the Senator. "If you go back to what was captured in 2017 and 2016, there is even more money."

Money for the wall. Mexico, in effect pays for it. Trump makes good on a campaign promise. Borders are better secured. End of discussion. Right?

Unfortunately, the discussion has gone past securing the borders. It is now a matter of Trump not being allowed to add "building a wall" to his growing string of accomplishments. The question becomes, "are Democrats that petty?"

Pelosi is. She sees Trump's agreeing to reopen the government without 100% assurance of a wall being included, as a political victory. In her mind, it was never about securing the wall, the dreamers or anything other than winning a political argument.

Should Trump simply declare an emergency? Who would object to his using confiscated drug money to achieve this goal? Chuck and Nancy would! But, they are only thinking about political aspects.

Trump knows that he will ultimately face the 9th district if he declares a national emergency. At that point, it would be a year long wait for the case to be heard by the Supreme Court. These same polls are suggesting that Americans oppose his declaring an emergency.

For those who bother to read history, Abe Lincoln made some calls that were not too popular! Had they taken polls during that time, it's likely that his approval rating would have hovered in the high 20's. Lincoln knew that in order to preserve the nation as we knew it, he would need to make some unpopular decisions.

This Lincoln did, knowing that if he did not, a determined minority might find that magic moment where they could defy the odds and achieve their objective.

That magic moment came in September 1862. CSA General Kirby Smith had between 18,000 and 20,000 battle tested, Confederate troops in Lexington. He had learned from Calvary General John Scott that the Union had "less than 5,000 raw levies" guarding Louisville.

Had Smith moved on Louisville, the Union would have evacuated the city. British Prime Minister, David Palmerston would have moved forward with his bill to recognize the Confederacy as a Sovereign nation. The American Civil War would have been over. In spite of the odds, the Southern states would have gained their independence.

Why Kirby Smith did not move is another topic for a different post. The parallel is noteworthy, in that Donald J. Trump has the machinery to end the border question, once and for all. Will he use it?

Many on the inner circle suggest that Pelosi's stiff necked, stubborn posture, coupled with the Democrats inability to find a strong challenger, will ice the 2020 election for the President. Perhaps they are right. But, what if they are not?

The country needs major immigration reform. Nearly everybody is in agreement on this subject. But, where is the compromise?

In a true compromise, neither side is totally happy. To the President's credit, he has tried to find some middle ground. The fact that the other side has shown virtually no interest in compromise, suggests that there is a motive that goes beyond the question of "do we or don't we build a border wall."

Maybe that motive is to sufficiently change the American demography just enough to tip the scales in states like Texas. This past weekend, it was discovered that 58,000 illegal votes have been tabulated over the past four years in the Lone Star state. In a close election, this could prove decisive.

We all know about California's "ballot harvesting" this past election.

And how about this endless Mueller probe? What I cannot fathom, is "why" similar action has not been taken against Hillary Clinton? Or, Obama for that matter?

We all hope that tomorrow morning, we'll awaken to a world of no media bias, no election fraud, no endless, politically inspired probes and no prejudice against insuring the safety of American citizens.

Sadly, we are not dealing with a foe that actually "gives a shit" about American citizens!

When traditional Democrats put "two and two together," many will walk away. After all, this isn't the party of Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy or even Bill Clinton.

"Give us a crime, we'll find a man." Or, "it's not who votes, it's who counts the votes." In the end, as Harvard Law Emeritus, Alan Gershoeitz, describes, "the criminalization of politics."

How utterly "Soviet!" Joseph Stalin would have been proud!

Does Nancy Pelosi see this?

Of course she does. She isn't stupid. The sad thing is that she doesn't care! She is consumed with winning a political argument and is obsessed with her hatred of Donald Trump. That is all.

Could it be enough to insure the president's reelection in 2020?

Too early to tell. There are other factors that will play in. My biggest concern in the near inevitability of voter fraud. "Where" and "to what extent" will be key questions.

Conversely, if the President declares an emergency, it will ignite a firestorm in the Democrat party. Even, if he announces that he will use confiscated monies from captured Mexican Drug lords. To his opponents, this would represent a win for the President and a fulfilled promise to his base.

Polls or no polls, border security is a winning issue for the president. Better to do as Lincoln did: Make a tough decision, knowing that the people who put you in power favor it, taking your chances with those who already oppose you on everything.

Which brings us to the final question: "When you know who your true opponent is and know that their desire is to destroy this nation, do you even want to allow this debate to continue?"

Today, Donald Trump has the Military, Homeland Security, I.C.E. and "armed America" in his corner. As distasteful as an "old fashioned, mano y mano brawl" might appear, it's also fact that the President would score a victory that would end in Communist expulsion from the continent.

We must also remember that the United States of America was never founded as a "Democracy." We are a "Republic." In short, a nation founded on "laws."

A "Democracy" has never worked over the long term. Never! They always end up as "Oligarchies."

Sooner or later, the two factions are going to fight over this question. We can either stick out heads in the sand and allow self interested "relics" like Nancy Pelosi call the shots. Or, we can "right" a long festering wrong that should have been addressed decades earlier.

Like Kirby Smith, the President is entering that "magic moment" where he can make the historical determination.

Monday, January 21, 2019

Trump's Overture Insufficient for Fantasy Based Democrats

So it's on the table!

President Donald J.Trump cagily rendered a compromise plan that is just moderate enough to generate moans from his conservative fringes. Overall however, it is brilliant.

Without getting into specifics, the President and Republicans are offering to postpone the DACA decision until after the 2020 election. This sets it on the table as a campaign issue. In process, they are providing items from the original Democrat "wish list." And, they are reopening the government.

It's all about positioning.

5.7 billion is a lot, but not really when compared to the 50 billion that we're forking out for foreign aid. If Trump were asking for fifty-seven billion, wall opponents might have a serious beef. But, it's not even twenty five billion, the original number. 5.7 billion? That's a compromise!

In a true compromise, neither side is totally happy. This proposal is no exception. If you don't believe it, ask Ann Colter! It's nothing either side wanted. But, it is a plan that Mitch McConnell thinks that he can find 60 Senate votes. If he does, it's over. Nancy Pelosi will have been outmaneuvered.

Then again, "Fancy Nancy" may not see it this way! If she doesn't,the Democrat party as we know it,will be gone. Look for at least 10% of party membership to become "walk-a-ways."

Historically, when finding themselves on the losing end of a debate, the left has cried racism.Trump's initiative most benefits those trying to get an economic leg up. As in, African Americans and Hispanic Americans! They suffer the most from the "wage depression," that results from an influx of unskilled illegal aliens into the U.S. labor market.

Many question "why" Republicans didn't answer this question when Paul Ryan was House Speaker. The answer is easy: "Paul Ryan Republicans" saw illegal aliens as an endless source of cheap labor. Many were replaced by Democrats in the midterm elections. A record number of them retired, in anticipation of primary challenges. In most cases, their districts were carried by Donald Trump in 2016.

Good, bad or indifferent, the President has found a winning issue: "Border security." Spin it as you wish, CNN, but people care! The recent skyrocketing of Hispanic approval numbers reflect as much. Pelosi's ill advised refusal to even counter the offer will open the door for Trump to declare an emergency. Conservatives hope that he will take the offensive.

This would amount to ending sanctuary cities as refuges for illegal aliens; starting with the arrests of non-compliant sanctuary city mayors. This might trigger a war. But what kind of war? And for how long?

Most of the nation simply does not have a stomach for an 1860's style bloodbath. The parts that do, are the same parts that are already armed, in hopeful anticipation that this day might come. They represent the core of Trump supporters.

Easy to see why some are so enthusiastic about gun control!

In short, it would be a massacre.

Those left leaning ideologues would realize that their far left brothers and sisters had taken them on a fateful detour. In the end, the left would lose; obliterated. It would be the most one-sided crushing in the history of warfare!

The country would subsequently take a rightward swing that would not be reversed for at least two generations. Maybe longer!

Conservatives would reference "The Naked Communist," a telltale, 1958 book written by former FBI special agent and political theorist, W. Cleon Skousen. They would rebrand the so-called,"Progressive Left" as "Communist Insurgency." Skousen's analysis would lend credence to this assertion.

It will start with education. The Department of Education in Washington D.C. would be eliminated. The National Education Association would be labeled a "Communist Insurgent Organization." All members would be precluded from ever working in the industry again. "Tenure" at all public colleges and universities would end. Each faculty member would be subject to an annual "objectivity review."

The term "separation of church and state" would be redefined. History would be consulted. It would be decided that the objective of the wording was the "keep the state out of the church." In essence, Americans didn't want a "Church of America" ala Great Britain's "Church of England," or Anglican Church. Over the years, Secularists have quietly reversed the original intent.

The "Lyndon Johnson era" edict of "disallowing churches protected tax treatment if they endorsed political candidates," would end.

America would be educated on the evils of political correctness. "P.C." would be classified as "cultural Marxism." Those advocating P.C. would be identified as "cultural Marxists." Employers would be encouraged not to hire "cultural Marxists."

Members of the Broadcast(over-the-air) media would be required to take a loyalty oath to the United States constitution. Those apprehended in the act of generating "fake news," would be treated like bankers generating fraudulent mortgage loans: They would be "precluded for life," from any employment in Broadcasting Journalism.

Sound crazy?

Think again. Governor Mike Huckabee pointed out that less that 30% of Evangelicals voted in 2012. That number climbed to almost 50% in 2016. To these Americans, it's about destiny and the ultimate "slaying of the beast."

Bottom line is this: Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to make her stand at this time. At best she will create a landscape for a 2020 presidential election which the Democrats will probably lose. At worst, she will compromise freshmen Trump districts, leading to major Republican House pickups in 2020.

In short, the nation is currently experiencing a "cold" war. Potentially, Pelosi and her party leadership could turn the "cold war" into a "hot" war.

A better idea is to try to work for the good of all of the people! Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi doesn't care if she starts a war! Not even one that might result in two million deaths. She is "Americas political class; the ruling class." If war comes, she'll be sitting in her Geneva chateau, sipping chardonnay. It helps when you are enormously wealthy as she is!

The new Democrat left is all about "hating America and doing everything within their power to destroy it." A growing number of "salt of the earth" Americans(Hillary Clinton called them deplorables)may ultimately conclude that the only remedy is "an old fashioned ass kicking."

Unlike the first civil war, the second war won't initially be "civil!" So many of these "deplorables" harbor a belief that "the only good Communist is a dead one."

With a clash of perceptions, both sides are right in their individual assertions. The side that wins is the side with the most power.

Jefferson Davis would attest to it.

Saturday, January 5, 2019

Could Trump Declare an Emergency?

Depends on who you ask.

Friday, the President emerged from an energetic tussle with "Chuck and Nancy." He gave his assessment of the discussion. It didn't sound all bad; unless it was your paycheck that has been suspended.

On the heels of that meeting came the December economic report. For Chuck and Nancy, it took some luster off their argument. The economy created 312,000 jobs in December. For the year, wages are up nationally 3.2 %. This is actually great news, for the country. If you are a Democrat trying to find fault with Donald Trump, it's deflating!

During the holidays, I had numerous chances to discuss funding of the border wall and Trump's first two years in general. Two conversations stood out.

He was a 26-year old, unmarried man who resides with his mother. When asked "why" he opposed the wall, he stated, "it just doesn't feel right."

When asked, "do you have any alternative suggestions," his answer was "no."

At another party, a dear friend and neighbor, who happens to be a Professor of Theology at a local college in the area, blatantly emphasized. "The problem with Trump is he just doesn't have the mental capabilities to handle the Presidency."

I coyly asked, "Who would you have in mind?"

His response: "I don't know."

Bear in mind. Both people aren't stupid. From an education standpoint, both have logged more than their share of classroom time. Yet, neither could admit why they held Donald Trump in such low esteem.

Odds are, an absurdly biased mainstream media contributed to their quandary. Yesterday's MSM reaction to the economic news was comical; as if someone had let the air out of their tires.

In short, great economic news translated to their being made to look stupid. Never mind how this news impacted the country!

From a sheer journalistic perspective, what we have today are a lot of "tabloid type" news people. Gone are the days when media professionals could present a story as it was. Now "editorials" are positioned as straight news. The end result: A lot of well meaning people are confused.

From a purely historical standpoint, Donald Trump is on track to be America's greatest president! Statistics don't lie! Main Street sees this. Sorry Chuck Todd, Don Lemon, Rachael Maddow, Chris Cuomo and Morning Joe! You are making fools of yourselves! You are essentially "majoring on the minor." Time to "man up" and admit that you have been gravely wrong about practically everything regarding this presidency.

A free press is essential in a free society. Unfortunately, with freedom comes responsibility. Glamorizing a particular position, while degrading the opposition is harmful. A prime example is newly elected, New York Congresswoman, Alexandra Ortasio-Cortez.

The mainstream media has idolized her, taking a "doglike deference" to her lack of intellectual credentials. This woman didn't even know that Israel was a country? Yet, to hear the revered Wolf Blitzer speak of her, you would think that she is the second coming of Marie Curie!

The inherent danger lies in how masses react to "rabble rousers" like Congresswoman Ortasio-Cortez. Certainly the question of immigration is beyond her depth. Or is it?

Political correctness is "cultural Marxism." A self proclaimed "Democratic Socialist" and avowed "radical," Ortasio-Cortez is comfortable with such a distinction. Little does she see from her "Bronx bubble" that large parts of America are seething!

Let's return to the original question: "Could Trump declare an emergency?"

The answer is "yes." Here is how the sequence could unfold.

The proclamation is issued. "Pandemonium," mostly from paid protesters breaks out in the streets of major cities. This time, however, things proceed differently.

Acting Attorney General, Matt Carpenter, informs sanctuary city mayors that they will have "seven days" to deliver all criminal illegal aliens to I.C.E., or face arrest. The charges? "Aiding and abetting criminals" and "obstruction of justice."

Would this be legal?


Riots would ensue. ANTIFA would overwhelm law enforcement officials. At that point, the President could call upon "civilian volunteers" to "assist local law enforcement and I.C.E. maintain order" in Sanctuary cites.

How many civilian volunteers would be summoned? Expect "three to four times" the number the President called for.

Colin Woodward, a Maine native, introduced an insightful read recently. It is called, "American Nations." In this book, Woodward identified eleven different Americas, who have miraculously held together from the time of the continent's settlement. As in 1861, the Union might be tested.

The American Nations siding with the President, per Woodward, are and have been the most "warlike" of the American Nations! For many of them, a kind of joy would be unleashed. For the average civilian volunteer, it would be the culmination of decades marked by pent up frustration.

For these souls, it would amount to "we are with you, Mr. President. Don't worry about arms or transportation. We've got that covered!"

And off they would go; to California, Chicago's south side, the Bronx, Portland, Oregon and other areas that needed to experience "a reckoning." Most would be men between ages 18 and 50, in groups of four and five, graced with 12-gauge pumps, AR-15's and nine MM's.

Once there, it's doubtful that they would stop with ANTIFA protesters! Most shocking to the media establishment would be the large numbers of local loyalists who would arise, embrace and join the incoming civilians!

The"Progressive Left" movement would crushed; and later re-branded. The new moniker: "The Communist Insurgency.."

It would be then and there, that the veil would be lifted from America's eyes!

Suddenly Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump would be facing the same opposition!

In a matter of weeks, Obama holdovers would be expunged from the State Department. Finally a meaningful peace would be at hand, beginning with a pacified Iran and a united Korea. Europe would be secured. Russia, Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia would join NATO.

A unified, mostly mostly Christian world would turn to the real global threat: China, where they are now implanting computer chips in their school children! Facing that kind of firepower, the Chinese would quickly acquiesce.

This ultimate face-off would be remembered as "Faith based National Populism" versus "Secular Global Socialism." Almost overnight, it would be "cool" to be a Nationalist!

When on the losing end of an argument, the "progressive left" has always resorted to the cry of "racism." To an Alexandra Ortasio-Cortez, Donald Trump is a racist, a bigot, a fascist and a NAZI. It's doubtful that the freshman Congresswoman knows anything about "National Socialism." Here's a hint.

Were Trump a NAZI, he would propose sending the apprehended criminal illegal aliens to Alaska, where work on a railroad connecting the state to the lower 48 would commence. Criminal illegals would be assigned to a "chain gang," placed on an 800 calorie per day diet, and worked 16 hours per day.

Within a few weeks, they would be dead. The official cause of death would be "general physical weakness." NAZI rationale would insist that "they were condemned anyway, why not get a few weeks of work from them?"

Few would know of their disposition. Prisoners would spend their first day writing letters to friends and loved ones. In most cases, recipients would be reading correspondence from corpses! The large Arctic wolf population would take care of the disposal problem.The sordid deed would be "sanitized" from history, in the same manner that ANTIFA seeks to erase Confederate history.

Fortunately, Donald Trump is anything but a NAZI.If he were, the last person advising him would be his Jewish son-in-law!

One could expect "limousine liberals" such as Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters to be on the first Leer Jet out of the country.! Left behind would be the "constituents" and the bulk of the Communist Insurgency(Progressive Left), exposed as the "Sheeple."

"Constituents" are the bought and paid for members of the bureaucracy. They are often joined by "tenured" professors at colleges and universities,such as my neighbor.

Americans would be shocked to know how many of these "constituents" are Democrats! Remember, Kathleen Sebelius? For those who don't, she was the head of the I.R.S. who took the 5th, when asked IF tea party members had been targeted by the agency.

"Sheeple" are what the word implies: "People who behave like sheep," doing what they are told and never questioning the rationale. This designation holds true to the young man who voiced opposition to a border wall, while offering no alternative. A large percentage of "Sheeple" are functionally illiterate.

So goes the border wall debate. Demanding entry are roughly 2,000,000 Central Americans. Their average education level hovers around the third grade. Almost none speak English.

Statistically "two-thirds" of all illegal aliens are receiving some sort of entitlement. Many have Medicaid cards and receive food stamps.

Once in the country, they are difficult to remove. In places like California they are able to acquire drivers licenses. Democrats see them as "ready made votes." Perhaps not immediately, but they are working on it.

Republicans conclude(correctly) that a wall, fence or something that says, "you can't come in," will discourage most. The journey is long and dangerous. Not all, but probably more than half of the border traffic will be thwarted.

Few have acknowledged the degree of voter fraud that exists today. Steps addressed in "E" is for English, would immediately eliminate voter fraud, seen by many as "the single, greatest threat to our Republic." The "progressive left" fears these measures will remove "fraud and cheating" as pathways to victory. It was Joseph Stalin who said, "it's not who votes, but who counts the votes!"

There are other corrective measures that would insure that we never had another 2018. It's probable, that an "Article Five convention of states" might provide the forum to instigate these changes.

In best case, this is how the "Emergency" would end. The "left" AKA "The Communist Insurgency," having witnessed ANTIFA's violent demise, would be stunned. Then, they would do a "180 degree turn" and condemn those who lead the Communist Insurgency. Most of the Oligarchs who inspired them, would be comfortably housed in European Chateaus, having exited early. Constituents,including Academicians, would ultimately do an "about face." Sheeple would experience the cold reality of a people manipulated.

In the end, America would still be one! There would be a massive decentralization, as well as some new amendments to the constitution. With some luck, the following would unfold:

1. H.U.D., Education and E.P.A. offices in Washington D.C. would be closed. All three would be reassigned to the states.
2. A National "Catastrophic" Health Insurance pool would be created. Health insurance could be purchased across state lines. Pharmaceuticals would be purchased directly by Medicare and Medicaid. Pharmaceutical companies would be precluded from contributing to political candidates or campaigns. Lobbyists would no longer be allowed in the capital.
3. Twelve-year term limits would be enacted on all Congressmen, Senators and non-military members of the federal bureaucracy. 18-year term limits for federal judges including Supreme Court justices.
4. Federal employees would be precluded from unionization.
5. English would be adopted as the official language in the U.S..
6. Voter I.D.'s with current photographs, would be required. Early voting would be limited to "no more than 14 days" prior to election. All participants would be required to vote in person at their local precinct or fill out absentee requests, thirty days prior to the election.
7. Only U.S. Citizens would be allowed voting privileges.
8. Congressional Representation would be based on the number of "United States citizens" in a district. Not "persons."
9. Birthright citizenship would be limited to those "previously held in involuntary servitude" and/or "those born in the U.S. but having held no previous status."
10. Immigration would be "merit based." The "immigration lottery" would be eliminated.

The founding fathers were deeply concerned about a government that might get away from the people. The Article Five convention of states was their stopgap measure that would address it.

Not addressed was whether a sitting president might preside over an Article Five convention. If this were the path chosen by Donald Trump, he would essentially be doing something similar to what Abraham Lincoln did.

In retrospect, Lincoln did the unimaginable. But historians credit him with "saving the union."

Trump would be doing something similar, albeit less profound.

It would later be referred to as "The Great Reckoning." Americans would see how close they came to having their country stolen from them by a tiny group of corrupt, insiders now commonly referred to as the "deep state."

In reality, the Alexandra Ortasio-Cortez' are nothing short of diversions. Lying beneath is a dark objective of a one-world socialist order, inspired by demonic figures such as Mao zedong.