Democrats and Main Stream Media, Strange Bedfellows...

 If you've been paying attention to American politics, as most of my readers have, you undoubtedly know of the 'relationship' between the democrats and the mainstream media. We'll take a look at how that relationship came to be, and it's obvious that it has deep roots in our history. It's the result of decades of political, cultural, and institutional shifts that reinforced each other. It's not an official alliance, but there's a mix of historical patterns, shared social circles and professional incentives that brought the two in such close alignment. 

In the early 20th century, newspapers were openly partisan, there were Republican papers and there were Democratic papers. In the mid 20th century, major outlets (CBS, NBC, NYT, Washington Post...) adopted a "professional objectivity" model. In the 1960's - 70's, the Vietnam War, Watergate, and the civil rights movement created a generation of journalists who saw themselves as watchdogs (Woodward and Bernstein...) against government power - particularly against Republican administrations (Nixon, Reagan, Bush). This era also saw newsrooms recruit more college-educated reporters from urban, liberal-leaning backgrounds. There's also a cultural and demographic element involved. Major newsrooms are concentrated in large cities (New York, DC, LA) that vote heavily Democratic. That creates (by osmosis)  a liberal newsroom culture where liberal viewpoints seem 'normal' and conservative viewpoints seem alien, or extreme. Add to that the fact that journalism schools and elite universities lean left politically, which undoubtedly shapes the values of incoming reporters. And we must take into account the 'social overlap'. Politicians, journalists, and policy staffers often attend the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods, and socialize in the same circles. Marriages and friendships across politics and media make shared perspectives more likely. 

There's a structural component to this history as well. As cable news and later the internet fragmented the audience, outlets began to chase loyal demographic niches. For many of the legacy outlets, the core audience leans left, so content and framing follows suit. Politicians who grant exclusives, leaks or insider info tend to be treated more favorably. Democratic administrations, especially Clinton and Obama, cultivated relationships with reporters. Newsrooms often choose perspectives that resonate with their editorial culture. 

The emergence of talk radio (Rush Limbaugh) in the late 80's, and Fox News in the late 90's created a parallel conservative media arena. Republicans increasingly distrusted legacy outlets, further reinforcing the perception that 'mainstream' media was leftist leaning. Over time, journalists who leaned conservative often gravitated toward explicitly right-leaning outlets, leaving legacy institutions with an even more left-of-center makeup. 

The Obama administration deepened the affection between many journalists and Democratic leaders. The Trump era accelerated the trend, as many outlets positioned themselves as opposition forces, further blurring the line between adversarial journalism and partisan advocacy. 

As for the social circles and familial connections, let's take a look at a few. At the time Susan Rice was Obama's National Security Advisor, she was married to Ian Cameron who was ABC News Executive producer. CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, who was Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications. ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former Obama White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. One time ABC News reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Kate Hogan, Obama's former Deputy Press Secretary. One time President of CNN, Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, Tom Nides.  

The all-out veracity of mainstream media has been dubious and questionable on many occasions of late. And for good reason. The majority of Americans have little confidence and place little credibility in mainstream media. Though it's doubtful that the institution will shift any further to the right or even center in the foreseeable future. They have simply taken on a level of irrelevance that they seem to accept. But the history of these strange bedfellows is there for all to see. The vast majority of Americans see it, are aware of it, and are taking it into account when they choose new sources. The 2024 election is hard proof of it. 

Are You an Organ Donor?

 Being an organ donor is a noble commitment. To oblige oneself with donating one's organs after death requires a true sense of altruism and compassion for others. Not to mention that the survivors will be obligated to accepting one's wishes to do so. To give, so that others may live is ennobling. However, this exchange of living tissue is transactional. Not intending to sound cold and detached, but organ donation is a multibillion dollar industry. While there are rules and laws, when humans are involved there will be errors, both accidental and intentional. Combining human error with life and death situations is brimming with the possibility of tragedy. Yet it happens...

In most jurisdictions, vital organs are removed only after a formal declaration of death - usually brain death, defined by irreversible loss of brain and brainstem function. This is meant to uphold the "dead donor rule", which requires that organ harvesting must not cause the donor's death. Some ethicists argue that families and donors may not fully understand that brain-dead donors are still alive in some physiological sense, even if legally dead. Donation after 'brain death' is considered 'common medical practice'. 

Another definition of death is "donation after circulatory death". This method is growing in use. Life support is ceased and after the heart permanently stops, usually a 2 - 5 minute waiting period, the organs are harvested. Ethical concerns arise due to the very narrow timing, potential conflicts of interest, and the possibility of misclassifying death. By definition though, this process is 'post-mortem'. 

It's worth noting that China espouses state-sanctioned organ harvesting from prisoners. Credible sources have described execution methods structured to yield high-quality organs before actual death has occurred. Witness testimony has confirmed that doctors have participated in organ procurement before death, essentially making the act of removing the organ the cause of death. 

As I mentioned earlier, since organ donation is transactional, and human error is a possibility, there have been documented cases of tragic reports. A Kentucky man declared brain-dead later showed signs of life during organ retrieval surgery. The procedure was halted and is now under investigation. Investigators found over 70 such near-miss cases in Kentucky alone, and a national review revealed 103 cases of concern. 28 potentially involving organ recovery before death. 

These reports have sparked public outrage, as they well should. The US Department of Health and Human Services is now launching major reforms to ensure that organ procurement only happens after death is definitively and legally confirmed. Even one, singular instance of harvesting vital organs before confirmed death is beyond horrifying. There is actually a man alive today that awoke in a surgical facility and locked eyes with medical practitioners who were about to harvest his vital organs. Unthinkable... While human error in cases where highly trained technicians are involved is rare, it's still possible. Which means there will be cases where error happens. Another case where we have to try to protect ourselves from ourselves... 

Human Vulgarity...

In the news today was one of the most profoundly saddest stories I have ever read. And, as we say here in the US, it really 'hit home'. The Islamic State and affiliates are burning churches and beheading Christians in Africa's Mozambique and the Congo. It pains me to even write such a hideous thing. International observers are reporting these events, with some of the most brutal attacks occurring in the country of Mozambique. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a counter- terrorism research nonprofit based in Washington DC, has descried this  as 'silent genocide' taking place against Christians. The Islamic State Mozambique Province recently released 20 photos boasting of four attacks on "Christian Villages" in the Chiure district, in Mozambique's northern Cabo Delgado province. 

MEMRI said the photos show ISIS operatives raiding villages and burning a church and homes. The images also allegedly depict the beheadings of a member of what the jihadists consider "infidel militias" and two Christian civilians. The rampaging jihadist groups celebrated the killings. There were also photos showing the corpses of several members of the so-called infidel militias according to the institute's report. 

This 'jihadism' taking place is actually Muslim activism gone awry. Islamic doctrine does not call for the annihilation of other religions. The Quran and classic Islamic law actually call for recognition of other monotheistic faiths. Judaism and Christianity are considered 'Ahl al-Kitab', "People of the Book". Historically, they were allowed to live under Muslim rule with certain rights and obligations. The Quran contains verses permitting religious diversity. "There is no compulsion in religion" -Quran 2:256, thought this is tied to other verses about religious conflict that are tied to specific historical events. However, there are verses that actually call for fighting, though they are typically connected to political or military conflicts of the 7th century, not an open-ended command to eradicate other religions. For centuries, non-Muslims often lived in Muslim lands paying a special tax but freely practicing their faith. 

The obvious explanation for what is happening in Africa, as well as in so many other places, is radical, extremist groups reinterpreting scripture to justify violence against all non-Muslims. Strangely, this is a modern militant ideology that doesn't reflect the historical position of Islamic jurisprudence. 

I chose the title of this article as I could not think of a more appropriate word to describe this atrocity than vulgarity. If you look up vulgar in the dictionary, you'll see such synonyms as crude, ribald, obscene, vile, depraved, and so on. This is beyond murder, this is savage slaughter. For me, this strikes at a personal level. Several years ago, I sent in a DNA sample to one of the labs that offered to give an elemental breakdown of one's heritage by country or region. From the stories of elders through the years, I had a pretty good idea of my cultural background, but I was sure there were some 'other details', so to speak. Indeed there was...Most of what I learned in the report was what I expected. One item was not. A small percentage of my bloodline is Congolese. I am, by most modern standards considered 'white'. Appearance-wise, I am as white as the clouds floating in a blue sky. My ancestral lineage includes the Congo. However small the proportion, it's there. The details of how it came to be I'll never know, only that it exists. 

Knowing that by bloodline, no matter how many generations ago, I am connected to the people of the Congo makes this even more impactful. That this is happening to Christians in Africa is beyond repulsive. It is base. It is a betrayal to humanity. It is an extreme of the savagery of nature. At this point we can only pray that some overpowering force, whether by man or God, will end this barbarism.  

It's a game of Inches...and so is life...

 Baseball is often referred to as a 'game of inches', owing to the fact that so many calls are so 'close'. That is, a runner and the throw arriving at a base at seemingly the same instant. Or a fielder leaping high against the outfield wall to make a catch and reaching over the top, nabbing a would-be home run. There's a lot of excitement in the game not to mention the tradition of more than two centuries of Americans watching and playing the game. It is also often intimated that many aspects of the game of baseball resemble life itself. I tend to agree with this philosophy and I'll give some examples. 

When my son was younger, we enrolled him in the local youth leagues when he was about six years old, give or take. He started out in T-ball, where the ball is placed on a "T", kind of like a very tall golf tee. The little sluggers would swing away. At six years of age, skills like dexterity, hand-eye coordination and strength are incipient, yet so endearing to watch. As the years began to roll by, our interest in watching him play never waned. In fact, when he was about ten, I took him to register for the season and was told the league was badly in need of coaches. He begged me to coach. I was, of course, reluctant as I had never coached any sport. In spite of loving the game of baseball, I just couldn't see myself as a coach. Five years later, I was an experienced baseball coach and had not only had learned a lot about baseball, but about life as well. It was to be some of the best years of my life. 

The rules of baseball are consistent for all ages. The only thing that changes are the dimensions of the field. Some of the traditions seen in the professional leagues find their way down to youngsters on a neighborhood field. Seeing a young boy, and his team jump in the air with excitement when a hit clears the outfield fence is unforgettable. His teammates rushing to the plate and slapping the hero's helmet is priceless. Teaching and coaching them to the point that they can accomplish such things is life-changing. 

Back to my point of baseball resembling life, allow me to give an example of that. Like practically every endeavor in life, some are going to excel and some aren't. Athletics and baseball are no exception. Even at an early age, some of the kids start showing signs of athletic talent. As they grew older, the more it obvious it becomes, even being able to play certain positions, and batting. They began to see for themselves where their strengths and abilities lie. As in life itself, we're all good at something, we just have to find where our niche is. And then go to it like the last monkey getting on Noah's Arc when it's beginning to rain. A big hurdle (and heartbreak) for kids, and adults as well, is when there is the desire is to do something that you don't quite have the ability to do. A lot of kids want to be a pitcher, the crowds focus on the pitcher. Everyone wants to be a star, and successful pitchers are indeed stars. Cy Young, Nolan Ryan, Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, I doubt anyone reading this won't recognize any of those names. Honus Wagner, Cal Ripken Jr., Ozzie Smith, Ernie Banks, recognize any of those names? They're pretty famous, but shortstops.  If you're a die-hard baseball fan you probably do, otherwise you might not. What twelve year old boy wouldn't want to be like Nolan Ryan? But the unfortunate truth is very few athletes have what it takes to be a good pitcher, at any age. As it turned out, my son was one of those who did have the athletic talent to pitch. When he was fourteen years old, I wasn't coaching at the time, I witnessed him pitch a nine inning no-hitter. It was an experience I could never forget in my lifetime. We spent countless afternoons on the field practicing, him pitching and me catching. I actually became a decent catcher in my forties. Pretty remarkable considering I was not a good baseball player when I was his age. Catching his pitches that were in the 80mph range, I was OK. When they started to reach into the 90mph range I knew I was near retiring. But I wouldn't trade those days for anything. As I coached him through the years in developing his pitching skills, I recall telling him that to be a good pitcher, I mean a really good pitcher, you have to want it. You have to want it in your heart and your soul. Then, then, you work at it until it happens, and giving up is not an option. That perspective, I believe would apply to just about any endeavor in life. 

There are other ways to point out the resemblance of baseball to life. My favorites are some of Yogi Berra's quotes. "It's not over until it's over." Who hasn't heard that, or even said it at times? "It's like deja vu, all over again. When you come to a fork in the road, take it. You can observe a lot by just watching. Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded. Baseball is 90% mental, the other half is physical." 

Baseball remarkably resembles life. Or is it the other way around? 

Let the Truth Be Known...

The recent declassification of documents related to the "Russia-gate"  scandal is getting a lot of press. And, as would be expected, the liberals are down-playing it, Obama called it absurd, and the mainstream media outlets are calling it all into question or claiming this is old news, let's move on. But, let's back the truck up here for a moment and take a closer look. 

A lot of what is known about the Hillary/Obama smear campaign has been known for years. Call it 'old news' if you like. But that won't lessen the gravitas of the offense. There is new information seeing the light of day after all these years. Details, you know, where the devil himself lives. This information is coming from documents that were stashed away in 'burn bags' in some discrete location in a DC edifice by persons unknown. I'm talking about the actual perps who stashed the burn bags. The perps who generated the contents of the burn bags are not anonymous. Not by any stretch. These missives, notes, emails, briefs have been made available to the public. They are voluminous, most of us have neither the time nor the desire to look them up and read them. We dont have to. There are some resourceful people whose livelihoods are to do this very thing. Some are doing an excellent job. Their findings, comments, analyses can be found on the internet. You won't find such on TikTok, Facebook, or Instagram or any of the mainstream media outlets. But it's there, trust me. If you care to know the truth, it will be worth your while to find one of these sources and read it. I mean, isn't that what the internet is for?...

What is being revealed is corruption, deceit and lies that rival the depths of depravity of the Tammany Hall scandal. If you're not familiar with that, google it, you'll find it very interesting, and very relevant. The president himself (at the time) conspired with a contending presidential candidate to smear a rival in an attempt to tilt the election in her favor. A number of high-ranking officials in several government agencies were involved and willingly participated. Only it didn't work. These corrupt maneuvers have been known about for years, but the recently declassified documents make the dirty details known. Like, who said what, who authorized what, who requested what, and who actually did what. It's the next best thing to video. If it's in writing and 'you' wrote it, it's nigh impossible to deny it. Of course, that doesn't mean they won't... Nor does it by any means suggest any of the perps will be held accountable, I mean to the point of being indicted. The best we can hope for is for the absolute, undeniable truth to be told and their reputations to suffer accordingly. And for history to tell the truth. 

<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-6796942009221473"

     crossorigin="anonymous"></script>

The View From Thirty-thousand Feet...

 Most of us at one time or another, some, many times, have flown in an airliner at thirty-thousand feet, give or take a few thousand feet. Most have also, probably had a window seat at times and gazed at the wondrous sight of the earth from high above the clouds. That view, for those moments, can be relaxing, humbling, and inspiring. Cityscapes, high plains, mountain ranges, woodlands, coastal swamps, like a beautiful NatGeo video playing in that small window beside you. It gives one a perspective they rarely see. One that is difficult to not appreciate. 

If we apply that same concept to global politics, no video or small window here, we'll have to rely on our imagination and ability to visualize. Set aside the small things, like the Epstein files, a communist running for mayor of New York City, Putin refusing to back off in Ukraine, Trump tariffs, set all that aside for a moment. Think of all the affairs of state going on in the world as if you were seeing it through that little window from high above. Presidents come and go, thanks to the sentient brilliance of our founding fathers. If you get a bad one, just wait four years (maybe eight...) and they're gone. Dictators and despots, the wait is usually much longer, but they have always been around and no sign of extinction anytime soon. But even they expire, though there is often some sociopath sycophant waiting to step in. Time goes on and things constantly change. No matter what may happen, time goes on, and at some point, without us personally, to bear witness. 

Fifty, a hundred years from now there will be a dictator, a tyrant, a prime minister and a president, perhaps a democrat, perhaps a republican, perhaps neither. There may be the tenuous brink of war somewhere in the world. There will be those prospering and those suffering. In spite of all the technological and cultural brilliance the world has to offer, it's not likely we'll be able to eradicate conflict and suffering. History says as much. Oh, things will change, dramatically. Compare today with fifty years ago, technologically, no comparison. Computers, the World Wide Web, space travel, communications, it's a brave new world. And in 2075, it will be another brave new world. Far be it from me to predict any details, your imagination is as good as mine. About the only thing I can guarantee is, if you are around in 2075 (I won't be), you will be awestruck. But as you look through that little window on the world, I believe along with all the marvels of the times, you'll still see some of the same things we see today. International tensions, geopolitical conflict, distrust, and heaven forbid, war, at some level. Centuries of history tell us that the human condition is incapable of escaping these vagaries. That by no means suggests we should give up and stop trying. Much of the world today lives in freedom and prosperity. We owe much of that to those before us who never stopped trying. And we owe it to those who will follow us the same. 

<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-6796942009221473"

     crossorigin="anonymous"></script>

<ins class="adsbygoogle"

     style="display:block; text-align:center;"

     data-ad-layout="in-article"

     data-ad-format="fluid"

     data-ad-client="ca-pub-6796942009221473"

     data-ad-slot="2212624937"></ins>

<script>

     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

</script>

"No One is Above the Law..."

 That has become an oft-repeated phrase in politics of late. In fact, it is absolutely true. Our Constitution says, "All Men Are Created Equal." There exists no premises under which anyone is above the law. But make no mistake, there are those among us that believe they are above the law. And their actions and behavior demonstrate such. Quite unfortunately, sometimes they get away with it. The real world isn't quite that simple. For average "Joes", like you and I, it is that simple. You do the crime, you do the time. For those with political might, shenanigans, capers and legerdemain often go unpunished. The world of politics is indeed a 'very tangled web'. I can't help but think of the  line from Sir Walter Scott's poem, "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." I think the theme of what he was saying was that your sins will inevitably catch up to you. In the world of politics, not always so. Some of them weave webs so tangled they begin to resemble the Milky Way. It's politics, that's the way it is...

Sometimes, sometimes, one will push the limits of their deceitful unscrupulousness to depths of depravity never before seen. Take Barry Obama, for example. Documents were recently declassified, much to his chagrin, I'm sure, that reveal Barry and some of his top officials manufacturing and politicizing intelligence to create the false narrative that led to the Trump-Russia collusion probe. This probe lasted years, until Robert Mueller's report finally concluded there was no evidence of any collusion with Russia. This is not hearsay, the perpetrator's claim to it being rumor has evaporated like dewdrops in the Mojave. Emails, messages, meeting records, Presidential Daily Briefs involving Obama, James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe and James Comey have now become red-hot smoking guns. Like most criminals, they will undoubtedly deny any wrong-doing until their last breath. After their last breath, actually. Unlike bank robbers and common scammers, these crooks are much more difficult to prosecute. Nigh impossible. Does such corrupt, perverted depravity keep them awake at night. Do polar bears have table manners? 

It's politics, it's just the way it is. 

<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-6796942009221473"
     crossorigin="anonymous"></script>

You Can't Handle the Truth!

 Some movies are so good, one need not be a movie buff to know about iconic scenes or statements made in them. Some phrases from a movie become more famous the movie itself.  A couple of great examples are "Go ahead, punk, make my day," Clint Eastwood from Dirty Harry. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn," Clark Gable from Gone With the Wind. "May the force be with you," Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars. "You're going to need a bigger boat," police chief Martin Brody in Jaws. "Show me the money," Cuba Gooding Jr. in Jerry McGuire. "Houston, we have a problem," Kevin Bacon in Apollo 13. Very few people are actually aware that the phrase said by astronaut Jim Lovell was slightly different than the one stated in the movie. The movie version became more widely known. 

One of my favorites was the feisty, emphatically shouted phrase "You can't handle the truth," said by Col. Nathan Jessup played by Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men." I believe that courtroom scene was one of the most iconic in movie history. In the exchange, Col. Jessup shouts to Lt. Kaffee, "You want answers?" "I think I'm entitled to answers!" quipped Lt. Kaffee. "You want answers?" repeated Col. Jessup. "I want the truth!" retorted Lt. Kaffee. "You can't handle the truth!" scolded Col. Jessup. 

The reason I detailed this scene is because I believe it to be so apropos to modern day politics. This is not an article delving into the faults and shortcomings of any political party. It applies to both of them, all of them. It's about lying, lack, or absence of veracity. Disingenuousness, deception, duplicity, fraud, artifice, chicanery, improbity, legerdemain., unscrupulousness, corruption. However one chooses to say it, the underpinning theme is the same. Before continuing, a qualification is necessary. Identifying a lie is not black and white. There are 'knowing lies' and 'unknowing lies'. The knowing lies really don't require any explanation. The perp states a falsehood and is aware and intentional of such. Those are what I like to refer to as 'bald-faced' lies. The 'unknowing lies' are falsehoods told when the perpetrator believes they are true, or has convinced themselves that it is true. This belief to be true can be genuine, perhaps as a result of ignorance or unpreparedness, neither of which is excusable. Lying is the art of deception. Liars have been known to admit to such, but that is by far the exception to the rule. Politicians, almost never...

Let's first delve into the 'bald-faced' lies told by politicians. These are the lies that are so obvious, even the most casual observer doesn't need to think about it. These lies are difficult to trace back to a politician who first stated them. They show up in social media and go viral, while the actual author remains anonymous. An example is Congresswoman La Monica MacGyver was charged with assaulting a federal officer in Newark, New Jersey while visiting an ICE detention center, unannounced. Her response was that the charges were 'purely political' and meant to deter legislative oversight. The assault was recorded on video and replayed on national television. Everyone knows, video doesn't lie. In June 2025, Senator Alex Padilla was slammed to the ground and handcuffed during a protest outside a press conference held by Kristi Noem regarding a crackdown involving ICE. Senator Padilla attempted to enter the press briefing when he was detained by ICE officers. Senator Padilla stated he was present for a meeting with military officials in the building. The press briefing did not involve any military officials, yet he forcefully attempted to enter the briefing room. Apparently, he believed that as a US Senator he could do 'whatever he pleased, whenever he pleased.  Legislative oversight? Come on, Alex, you know that's not how it works. You too, LaMonica, you know that's not how it works. 

The 'unknowing lies', well, let's just say pinning those down is like like herding cats, or nailing jello to a wall. Civilians are not afforded the defense of "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law..." I suppose that means we commoners are expected to know and understand every law on the books. Apparently, politicians are given much more latitude. How often do we hear "my statement was taken out of context", or "what I said was misrepresented, misinterpreted." 'Dodgy', I believe is the word the British use. The point is best summed up in the quote from George Orwell; "In a time of widespread deceit and manipulation, speaking the truth is an act of rebellion." If you look at American politics throughout the years, decades, even centuries, what could possibly be said that would be more 'apropos'?... 

Do politicians really believe that we, the people can't handle the truth? Probably, but we want the truth, we expect it. It's not us that can't handle the truth, it's you...

The Texas Flood

 It is inarguable that the recent Texas Food was a disaster of epic proportions. Not only did many Texans lose their lives, many of them were innocent children attending an exuberant, traditional, summer event. Many were families celebrating the Fourth of July weekend by recreating in a placid RV park located along the Guadalupe River. As they may have done for many years prior. It was in the dead of night, most were asleep. Did the sirens, radio announcements, cell phone alerts awaken them of the impending disaster? Obviously, for most, no, they did not. Did the necessary alerts actually happen? Some did. Some did not. It depends on where exactly they were along the river. Through Kendall County, where the majority of the disaster occurred, the Guadalupe stretches for 39 miles. Outdoor warning sirens are designed to be heard for one mile. One. Mile. Does any river prone to flooding have sirens located at one mile intervals anywhere in the world? No. 

The Guadalupe River experienced major floods in 1036, 1952, 1972, 1973, 1978, 1987, 1991, and 1997. Floods are not predictable. They do not follow measured cycles. As the Austin Chronicle wrote in 2015, "Unlike Houston, which experiences 'bathtub flooding' (in flat terrain, floods flatten out and become more predictable). Central Texas experiences flash flooding which makes that more impractical. When rains fall over the 'Hill Country', water runs downhill and collects in low-water crossings, streams, and rivers. Anything in its path is fair game for destruction. 

When looking at the death toll for such a horrible disaster, many ask, "Why weren't they prepared for something like this?" The river gauge closest to Camp Mystic is about five miles downstream of the camp, where the south and north forks of the Guadalupe River merge. It recorded a rise of more than 25 feet in two hours, before going silent fore the rest of the day. There are very few, if any, locations on earth that can handle a rive rising more than 25 feet in two hours without catastrophic damage and serious risk to human life. It's important to consider that this rapid rise occurred at 3 am, when most people are sound asleep. 

As horrible as the death toll is, this is likely to be the fourth-deadliest flood in Texas history, after the 1900 hurricane that hit Galveston with casualties of about 10,000. 

As the flood waters surged, media outlets rushed to blame Donald Trump and Elon Musk's DOGE Commission for budget cuts that left the National Weather Service helpless. The meteorological community soon took umbrage with the media. The local NWS was fully staffed, in fact, overstaffed, per protocol, during the storm. Warnings were sent out about twelve hours in advance, and a flash flood warning for the affected counties was issued three hours before it hit. DOGE's marginal cuts to executive branch spending - cuts not even yet ratified by the Senate, were not to blame for this catastrophe. 

Victims are never to blame. But when warnings are issued, and those in the affected areas dont act upon them, the authorities are not scapegoats. Questions remain about whether people along the river had cell service to get the 'push alerts', had alerts enabled on their phones, or were even awake to hear them. I'm loathe to say this was a  'perfect storm' so let's say 'imperfect storm'. 

There's always going to be the argument that bad things happen because of government decisions. Undoubtedly, government policy can generate different outcomes, and mitigate or exacerbate the effects of natural disasters. It's hard to envision a government policy that can mitigate the loss of life when river levels rise more than 25 feet in two hours in the middle of the night in an area that has been prone to flooding for more than a century. When most are sleeping. Do you find it in your heart to blame families that were sleeping and not listening to the radios or cell phones at 3 am? 

I dont... However regrettable... 

I'm back, and I'm here to stay.

 About a month ago, I posted that I was moving from blogspot to Substack. After a fair amount of research, I had convinced myself that I would get more exposure and traction on Substack. While substack is a good platform, turns out it might not be the best for me. It certainly doesn't appear so when I compare the number of readers in so many countries. Substack appears to only reach readers in the US. On Blogspot I have increasing numbers of readers in not only the US, but Mexico, Canada, UK, Germany, France, Romania, Spain, Austria, India, Hong Kong, Singapore, and others. If you're enjoying reading my blog, please recommend it to others. I am humbled that so many people the world over are interested in my writing. I write not only about political events but human interest stories as well. 

A heartfelt thank you for reading my blog. I will continue my blog, thanks to all of you. I truly enjoy doing this and I am honored that all of you are reading what I have to say. I am nearing the completion of my second novel and will publishing it soon. I'll be providing some free copies to some of my blog readers, so stay tuned. If you like reading action thrillers, then I guarantee you'll like my book.

Arrivederci,

C. Clayton Lewis 

TikTok. Why are you still here?...

 In 2024 large bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate passed a law requiring that TikTok be banned or sold. Biden signed it into law, well, autopen signed it, whether Biden actually knew about it we'll never know, and the Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional. TikTok was scheduled to be banned in the U.S. on January 19, 2025 unless its parent company, ByteDance divested its U.S. operations. The deadline was set by a provision in that law. It didn't happen, and it still hasn't. TikTok is still owned by ByteDance. It's no secret that ByteDance is key player in the Chinese Communists Party's military-industrialist-surveillance system. ByteDance is subject to the defacto control that the CCP has over all PRC technology companies. 

None of these circumstances are debatable, it's not a gray area, and nothing about it is dubious. Under U.S. law, TikTok is officially banned in the US. Except, it isn't. TikTok isn't banned because Trump doesn't feel like banning it. Three times he has claimed presidential privilege to delay implementation of the law. Of all the privileges the president has, that isn't one of them. He made it up. He consistently claims that TikTok has a potential buyer and that a deal is imminent. Last week Trump claimed he would reveal the new buyer "in about two weeks." I think in Trump's world, everything is going to happen in about two weeks. 

China's 2017 National Intelligence Law requires Chinese companies to assist in intelligence gathering if requested by the government. TikTok reportedly collects a wide range of information, including location data, browse and search histories, and other network activity. There have been actual reports of CCP-controlled ByteDance using TikTok to spy on the physical locations of American journalists. A former TikTok executive stated that the CCP "maintained supreme access" to TikTok data. Five months into Trump's term and the ban is still not being enforced. 

However, TikTok has initiated an initiative called "Project Texas" to address US national security concerns. The project involves storing US user data and the systems that power TikTok in the US are being monitored and tightly controlled by US-based employees of TikTok USDS. TikTok states that Project Texas includes government and independent oversight to prevent backdoors into the platform that could be used for information. If you trust China and Xi Jinping then I suppose Project Texas is great. Anyone out there trust China? Didn't think so...

The concerns and allegations regarding TikTok potentially spying on Americans for the CCP are well-documented and valid. For the past several months, TikTok has continued to feed Anti-American crap like "Osama bin-Laden made a lot of reasonable points" and "Hamas was justified" onto the ever-present screens of America's teens and young people. Why does our president, who consistently claims he is "tough with China" keep doing what Xi Jinping wants him to do, in defiance of federal law?

If one cares to delve into the nitty-gritty, it can be more than reasonably argued that TikTok paved the way for the rise of Zhoran Mamdani. You know, the leading candidate for mayor of New York who rants about "seizing the means of production." If that phrase doesn't strike a nerve with you, you are either very young or have not studied world history. For those of us that it does, it's a show-stopper. Full stop. 

So, tell us, Donald, why are you allowing this? Even more to the point, to both houses of Congress, why are you allowing him to continue to do this?... You were indeed elected by a considerable margin with voter mandates. Let me be clear, this was not one of them.