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. 

The Great Legacy of Fmr Justice Anthony Kennedy

 I have long been a student of the United States Supreme Court. For nigh five decades I have followed court rulings, Supreme Court Justices and the effect rulings have had on politics and the citizenry. I've been most interested in the Supreme Court because I believe it is the branch of government that has the most prevailing and significant impact on the everyday lives of the American people. Of course, it also serves a monumental role as an arbiter who maintains the checks and balances on the other branches of government. The U.S. has an extensive hierarchical court system allowing for appeals and reviews. Cases in the lower courts are often overturned, dismissed, retried, and appealed all in attempt to ensure true justice is carried out. Cases that are unable to get resolved in the lower courts often are presented to the Supreme Court, which is the court of last resort. 

Former Justice Anthony Kennedy was appointed by President Reagan in 1987. After serving 31 years on the bench he retired in 2018. Justice Kennedy was known for writing some of the court's landmark opinions and wielded significant influence across various legal domains, including LGBTQ+ rights. To give some insight into Justice Kennedy's personal composition, in the case of Griswold vs Connecticut, a privacy case about the use of contraceptives, Kennedy discussed "a zone of liberty, a zone of protection, a line that's drawn where the individual can tell the Government, 'beyond this line you may not go.'" Kennedy became known as an independent thinker, though he voted with the conservative justices the majority of the time, but not always. 

Recently, Kennedy spoke during "Speak Up for Justice"' a virtual forum about threats to the rule of law, defending the role of judges in a democracy. He advocated the need to protect them and their families from threats. "Many in the rest of the world look to the United States to see what democracy is, to see what democracy ought to be," stated Kennedy. "If they see a hostile, fractious discourse that uses identity politics rather than to talk about issues, democracy is at risk. Freedom is at risk." Kennedy did not mention Trump by name during his speech. He did say, "We should be concerned in this country about, as I've already indicated, the tone of our political discourse. Identity politics are used so that a person is characterized by his or her partisan affiliation. That is not what democracy and civil discourse is about." 

Other participants at the forum, which included judges from the US and other countries warned about how attacks on courts can threaten democracies, denouncing statements by Trump deriding the courts. US District court Judge Esther Salas, whose son was killed by a disgruntled lawyer who went to her New Jersey home in 2020, said, "disinformation about judges was spreading 'from the top down' with jurists attacked as 'rogue and corrupt'". Salas warned that the number of threats recorded against judges this year was reaching unprecedented heights in the U.S., noting that the U.S. Marshals Service has tracked more than 400 threats since January, when Trump took office. 

Though retired, and no longer a sitting jurist, Justice Kennedy's resounding opinion on this issue should strike a strident chord with everyone, from the President himself down to ordinary people discussing politics in a coffee shop. There is indeed a threat to democracy, finally someone has spoken up and told us exactly what it is. 

PTSD is a curse...And LA is bringing it home...

I watch and read the news about the riots going on in LA. Bricks, rocks and bottles being hurled at police, cars burning and being vandalized. Ingrates standing on vandalized cars waving the flags of foreign countries. Most of them draped in a keffiyah. Protesting the “oppression of Palestine and the slaughter of innocent Palestinians.” Perhaps the protesters should attend the same training Great Thunberg is getting in Israel about now; videos of the October 7 attack that killed over 1,200 innocent Israelis and 250 civilians taken hostage. Unprovoked attack, I might add. Many of the hostages have died in captivity. Some have yet to be released. 

And here we are, watching Los Angeles burn. The governor himself can’t bring himself to call in the resources to calm the situation. Nor can the mayor of Los Angeles. Trump calls the National Guard and greaseball Newscum starts squawking like a goose. Why? Your city is on fire, out of control and you dont want help to quell the riots? What’s the plan, let them have their fun and we’ll clean up after them? Is that what being a sanctuary city is all about? Do you want Trump to call Hamas and tell them “We’re so sorry, you guys carry on, we’ll get those pesky Israelis out of your hair.” Seriously, what is it that you want?

Whatever it is, you’re not going to get it. If you’re lucky, maybe a couple of weeks in jail and a hefty fine. If you’re an illegal alien, a one way ticket home. That’s if you’re lucky. As far as cleaning up the mess, that’s Newscum’s problem. Forget about federal help.

So, why did I mention that PTSD is a curse? Some years ago when I was a young man starting my career, I was given an assignment in Iran. Short term, no big deal. This was back in the late 70’s when Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was the ruler of Iran. He was not a good character, nevertheless, for political reasons he was a political ally of the US. In February 1979, at the height of some serious political and civil unrest in Iran, the Shah was overthrown and left Iran going into permanent exile. Before he left, the streets of Tehran looked a lot like the streets of LA today. Rioting, burning cars, trucks and buildings, protesting and chaos. Just like LA today. How do I know this, I was there. Leading up to the shah’s departure, the unrest was gradually, yet steadily growing. The company I worked for had an office in downtown Tehran, we walked to and from the hotel daily to work. Now and then we would see some troublemakers throw a rock or two, but we didn’t think things were out of hand. Until it was. The last couple of times I made the walk to and from work, was like being on a movie set, but it was no movie. It was real life, and it was terrifying. The morning I went in to the office and saw bullet holes in the windows, I told the boss I’m done. Apparently, at that time I was the only one who was throwing in the towel. I later learned that it wasn’t long before the rest did the same. 

I was booked on a flight out of Tehran the next day that departed at 8am. I had to be at the airport at 5am. Martial law was in effect, so anyone on the streets between 5am and 8pm was subject to being shot. Evidently, due process wasn’t a thing in Iran. Still isn’t…The taxi driver spent the night in the hotel lobby since he couldn’t make the trip from his home to the hotel during curfew. At 5 am sharp, we loaded my bag in the taxi and took off on the dark, quiet streets of Tehran. As we were leaving we noticed the hotel staff were taking down portraits of the Shah. I asked one of them why they were doing that. The reply was “It’s for the guest’s safety.” The taxi driver took off driving hurriedly through the deserted streets, making lots of turns. I wondered why he seemed to be meandering, it was adding to my growing anxiety. My mind was conjuring up more ‘what-ifs’ than you can imagine. But he kept driving and that gave me hope. After forty-five minutes or so of scurrying down dark streets, we turned onto what seemed to be a straightaway. I prayed it was the ‘homestretch’ to the airport. But as soon as we turned onto the open road, hope quickly faded into fear. For as far as I could see were troops, armed troops milling about armored tanks carrying automatic rifles. The first thought that came to mind was Jesus, please don’t stop. I had no idea, no clue, what the next few minutes would bring to my life. Is he going to stop the car, the door to be yanked open and I would be drug onto the sand and who knows what next… Who’s side is he on? Is he getting bakshish for delivering an American? The Iranians were as unhappy with us as much as they were with the Shah. Just.Keep.Driving. was all I could think. As we sped down the road through hell I occasioned a look out the window and actually made eye contact with a couple of armed soldiers. At least, I thought they were soldiers. In the Middle East it’s often difficult to tell who is a soldier and whose side they are on. Making eye contact was a big mistake when your anxiety is hitting a zenith. They appeared to be as unhappy as I was which was not a good sign. I slid a little lower in the seat and continued to pray. We were probably on the straightaway for about fifteen minutes. It felt like a week. I suppose it wasn’t my time to go as the driver kept driving and we soon pulled up in front of the airport. A few minutes after 8 o’clock the 737 took off for London. As it turns out, it was to be the last commercial flight to leave Iran for several years. Once we were ‘wheels up’ everyone on the plane, I suppose over 200 passengers, applauded. Myself included. 

Several years after the Shah was exiled, a movie was made about the brief period of time around the Shah’s departure until the Iranian dissidents took the American hostages at the American Embassy. The movie was about employees of a company owned by Ross Perot, titled “On Wings of Eagles.” Many of his employees didnt leave before the last flight that I had the privilege of being on. With no aviation transport, they were forced to make their way to the coast and pay for passage on boats. Any kind of boat, tugboats, merchant ships, money talked and it saved lives. One day later and I would have been doing the same. If you haven’t seen the movie, dig through the archives and check it out. It’s historically accurate, and gripping. 

What I see happening in Los Angeles today brings back memories of my time in Tehran. The streets of LA look eerily like the streets of Tehran did back then. Iran’s history was etched in stone during those days. The not-at-all peaceful transfer of power, and the emergence of a radical Muslim regime. I’ll never be able to forget what I saw in Tehran. Countless lives were forever changed during those days. Mine included. Now, watching the same happen in LA? Are the National Guard and the Marines needed? Did Trump make the right decision? From my perspective, yes…

Highly Creative People...And the malady many of them often carry...

There are a lot of ‘things’ in our lives that have contributed to making life better in some way. I use the word ‘things’ simply because I can’t think of a word inclusive enough to cover everything. Art, music, culture, technology, products, markets… and more. What I want to talk about is the people behind some of these monumental, life-changing developments and some common, yet unique characteristics so many of them seem to possess. Many of these people are famous, at least to some extent and their fame generally comes from their remarkable contributions. But when we take a closer look at the person, the character behind the watershed creations they left us with, often we find traits, attributes, facets, mannerisms, habits, and quirks that we weren’t expecting to learn. In some cases, they can be shocking. Things we learn about as them as a person doesn’t seem to align with their persona and their remarkable contributions to society. So many of these creative geniuses left legacies that in many ways define the world live in, yet the personal impressions they left with those who knew them, lived with them, collaborated with them was repugnant, even abhorrent. Perhaps they did leave us with a cultural or technological treasure, but they also left an acidic reputation. It’s an intriguing topic, let’s look at some examples. 

A contemporary with whom practically everyone alive is familiar with and who left us with a plethora of technological marvels is none other than Steve Jobs. Probably half the population of the world is using an iPhone, or an iPad, or an iMac or something else made by Apple. There are quite a number of people who possess considerable wealth due to the rocketing rise in value of the Apple brand through the years. But if you set aside all these technological miracles and take a closer look at the person who brought it all to life, you might be surprised. Steve Jobs was brash, arrogant, contemptuous, intense, and driven. While he did lead a company known for quality products, he was exceptionally difficult to work with. 

Some of these creative geniuses who drove hard to impress the world with their altruistic efforts weren’t quite able to ‘keep it between the legal lines’. Perhaps what they lacked in genuine creative genius they made up for it with corruption and deceit. Take the case of Elizabeth Holmes. At the age of 19, Holmes dropped out of Stanford University and founded Theranos, a healthcare technology company. The company claimed to have developed revolutionary blood testing technology that could perform hundreds of tests with a single drop of blood. This promised to make blood testing cheaper, more convenient, and more accessible. Theranos reached a valuation of $9 billion. The company’s proprietary technology was soon found to be unreliable, and it was discovered they were using commercially available machines for their testing while falsely claiming breakthroughs. As the trail of fraud and conspiracy began to unravel, her and her co-conspirator Ramesh Balwani were convicted on multiple fraud charges and are both currently in prison. 

One would be hard-pressed to find a living person who has not listened to music by the Beatles. Everyone has pleasant memories they associate with a Beatles song. Millions recognize their songs anytime they hear them. They were all very talented artists but Lennon and McCartney formed one of the most successful songwriting partnerships in music history. Several of the songs they wrote became cultural icons and defined a generation. Lennon’s songwriting often explored themes of love, peace, and social commentary. One might expect that such beautiful music heralding such compassion would be the reflections of a calm and tranquil soul. Not so much. Lennon had a reputation for being sarcastic and cynical. His impulsive nature lead to numerous controversies. He was egotistical and highly opinionated, arrogant. 

We have come to expect a level of eccentricity from musicians, not often seen in others. Often an underpinning of their brand is uniqueness. Standing out, so to speak. Contemporaries are often known for their affinity for mind-altering drug use, probably a lot of great songs came from musicians on a high. And of course there’s the aberrant and reckless behavior that accompanies the drug use. And we all know fame often builds colossal egos. This isn’t only contemporary musicians though. Let’s go back a few centuries and have a look at Ludwig von Beethoven. Talent and greatness only begin to describe Beethoven. He revolutionized almost every genre of music he touched. He introduced greater emotional range and intensity, using innovative harmonies and rhythms. His symphonies transformed the genre from entertaining works into grand, dramatic statements. His music had a profound influence on later generations of composers. Beethoven became deaf in his later years yet still continued to compose some of his greatest works. Beethoven was a fiery and irascible person. His irritability was likely exacerbated by his deafness and the isolation it caused. In spite of his disability, he had an enormous ego and was arrogant. Like Lennon, he was often sarcastic and dismissive of the opinions of others. He could be blunt, tactless and incredibly rude. 

A particularly interesting case of a bright, idealistic visionary who went terribly ‘off the rails’ was Martin Shkreli. Shkreli dropped out of high school but later earned a business degree from Baruch College. He started a career in finance and founded two hedge funds. Neither venture made much money, which led him to the pharmaceutical industry as a potentially lucrative area. He co-founded the biotech firm Retrophin. In 2015, Shkreli’s company, Turing Pharmaceuticals acquired Daraprim, a 62 year-old drug used to treat toxoplasmosis, a parasitic infection that can be life-threatening, especially for people with HIV/AIDS and pregnant women. Shortly after acquiring it, Turing raised the price of a single pill from $13.50 to $750, an increase in excess of 5,000%. Shkreli defended the price hike by claiming that profits would be used for research and development of new and better drugs. He also claimed that Daraprim made up only a small percentage of overall health costs and offered to provide the drug at a lower costs to patients without insurance. His claims were widely rejected and faced immense public outrage. Prior to the Daraprim controversy, Shkreli was under investigation for his activities at Retrophin. In December 2015, he was arrested by the FBI and charged with securities fraud. It was alleged that he defrauded investors in his hedge funds and used money from Retrophin to pay them back. In 2018 he was sentenced to seven years in prison and ordered to forfeit $7.4 million in assets. Shkreli became known not only for the Daraprim price hike, but also for his provocative and offensive online presence. He frequently engaged in controversial behavior on social media, including taunting his critics. Since his release from prison, he has been banned from serving as an officer of any publicly traded company. 

While Shkreli obviously crossed the line into criminal activity, most savants don’t. But character traits that seem to pervade the class of the overly talented is brash, caustic, narcissistic personalities. Some appear to be motivated by self-adulation, with a sharp contempt for others. There are a host of well-known personalities who exhibit exceptional talent and creativity who also posses some or all of the characteristics described in the above cases. Such as Gordon Ramsey, Kanye West, Bobby Fischer, Frank Lloyd Wright, Howard Hughes, Thomas Edison, Andrew Fastow, Sam Bankman-Fried, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, Mark Cuban, Travis Kalanick, John Kapoor… All highly capable, intelligent, over-achievers who were comtemptuous, solipsistic jack-asses. Most overlooked these fatal character flaws in light of their astounding achievements and contributions. One cant help but wonder, why? Why do super-savants need to be caustic personalities? The axiom, we are a product of our environment doesn’t really hold in these cases. Most probably came from decent, respectable families. Even if that weren't the case, at some point in everyone’s life we become individually responsible for who and what we are. Granted, everyone is not a ‘nice guy.’ Everyone is not socially adept and easy to get along with. We dont expect everyone to be. But typically in the real world, in everyday life, the stubborn, recalcitrant, jerks usually pay a price for the inability to get along. If you happen to be a super-creative innovator, then I suppose you’ll just have to live alone in your little universe that you believe yourself to be the center of. And we’re only too happy to let you…

We're moving

 I will no longer be posting to my blog here on blogspot.com. I have started an account on substack where my posts will appear going forward. I believe substack is more suited to how I want to go forward with my blog and will give the added benefit of providing more visibility and thus traffic to my blog. 

I'll still be posting topics on political analysis but I'l be expanding my new blog on substack to include aerial drone videos and discussions concerning drone photography. This is a hobby, so far, but may become an avocation at some point. It's really fun and I think you'll enjoy the videos and photos. And, of course, the political takes will continue as usual. 

Hope to see you over there on substack. 

cclaytonlewis.substack.com

Let's beat this dead horse just a little bit more...

 In a perfect world, only the truth is spoken. Of course, we don't live in a perfect world. There never has been a perfect world and there never will be. Some untruths are without much consequence, others not so much. The 'dead horse' I mentioned, is of course the Biden scandal which has been the headline topic of late. Two liberal 'journalists' authored a book about what is undoubtedly the biggest presidential scandal in history. The scandal of hiding the physical and mental decline of a United States President from the public. And during his period of incapacity, his presidential power and execution of duties being assumed by 'others'. We will probably never know the names of the group of 'others'. The only safe assumption, in my opinion, of at least one of the names is Jill Biden. If his wife didn't know of his cognitive and physical decline, then she's either much worse off than him or the world's greatest liar. Could be both for all we know. As far as who the others were, that secret will probably go to the grave. I'm quite sure that is what 'they' intend. 

The extent of the lies, untruths and deception to pull this off is unfathomable. Abe Lincoln is turning in his grave. There is no 'of the people, by the people and for the people' here. Whomever perpetrated this was 'the people shall never know...' Their thinking, and that's using the term in an immensely liberal sense, was allowing the public to know the truth is not in the best interest of the Democratic Party. And now that it's obvious to even the most casual observer what happened, the best interest of the Democratic Party resembles the Titanic sitting at the bottom of the North Atlantic. They're still making noise, but it's akin to a a baby crying in a crowded theater. Very annoying, but inconsequential. 

The American voting public still values veracity. We still abhor lying and deceit. Proof of that lies in the current state of the Democratic Party. As the venerable Mr Lincoln once said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." No one knows this better than the current Democratic Party. Or at least what's left of it...

#original sin #presidential scandal #deep state 

Suasion and the Supreme Court...

 Politics are an integral part of American politics. It's 'the nature of the beast' so to speak. It's a, one could reasonably argue, a natural part of civil discourse and debate. For the legislative and executive branches of government, that is. The judicial branch was intended to interpret the constitution and to apply the rule of law equitably, so that everyone was treated equally under the law. With the doctrine of separation of powers, political ideologies and priorities were meant to be exclusive of the workings of the judicial branch. For the most part, a couple of centuries passed and things went as planned. I emphasize, for the most part...

Politics can be like a contagious disease, it tends to spread to places where it wasn't supposed to be. Like the Supreme Court. Thomas Jefferson and his Secretary of State, James Madison refused to even send a lawyer to argue Marbury vs Madison. M vs M was one of the most important and foundational cases in U.S. legal history. Chief Justice John Marshall and the court in this case established the principle of judicial review; the power of the court to declare laws unconstitutional. The is ruling gave the Supreme Court the power to the court to rule a law enacted by congress as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has done so on numerous occasions; Brown vs Board of Education, Roe vs Wade...

Of course, today we are not dealing with a law enacted by Congress. We are dealing with Executive Orders, while being legal instruments of the executive branch are subject to judicial review. Were Congress to quit sitting on its hands and do what it should be doing, this might not be happening. The monkey wrench comes in deciding does the ruling of a federal district court constitute proper and appropriate  judicial review? In effect, a federal district judge is issuing a ruling binding on the entire nation when the entire nation is not the jurisdiction of that judge. 

Difficult as it may be to believe, there was a time when the Supreme Court decided it was not necessary to decide a case dealing with federal authority to ban slavery. The greatest irony of history? Perhaps... 19th century lawyers tended to regard precedent as a series of decisions affirming a principle, as opposed to modern day lawyers viewing a single decision as a binding precedent. 

History considers our most authoritarian president to be Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt devised a 'court-packing' plan to de-legitimize the court to disable the opinions of its four conservatives at the time. They had a record of striking down his 'New Deal' programs. He denounced the court in his famous 'fireside chat' radio programs and his court-packing proposal was so baleful that his own Democratic Party rejected it resoundingly. But the suasion of his campaign was so effective the court bent its jurisprudence to allow Roosevelt to do what he wanted. 

In 2010, deja vu revisits, all over again. In his state of the union address, Obama openly derided the justices for siding with "special interests" in the Citizens United decision. In 2012, Obama upped the pressure in advance of the court's decision on the constitutionality of Obamacare, waring against the extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. He claimed this was a good example of illegitimate judicial activism, a group of unelected people overturning a duly constituted and passed law. Sound familiar? Obamacare was passed unilaterally. Not one single Republican vote. Not. One. 

These were not arguments on the proper role of the court, they were efforts to intimidate the court against going against the will of the people. And it worked. Chief Justice John Roberts changed his vote to rule Obamacare as constitutional. Such had never happened in the history of Supreme Court rulings. 

The court has been unduly influenced on the topic of gun control. In March 2020, Chuck Schumer stood on the steps of the Supreme Court building to bellow, "I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have unleashed the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions." Waves of protests followed targeting the justices at their homes. The Biden admin responded by conspicuously resisting providing law enforcement protection to the justices. The 2020 presidential candidates including Buttigieg and Harris endorsed court-packing. Biden attacked the court when it struck down his unconstitutional student loan plan to spend a half trillion dollars to forgive student loans without congressional approval. On the campaign trail he bragged, "The Supreme Court blocked it, but that didn't stop me." Lest we forget...

Trump's defiance of court orders are not unprecedented, not by any means. In fact, the threats to the judiciary have typically come from the democrats throughout the past century. The democrats are simply playing on the ignorance of the voters to history. 

#supremecourt #courtshopping #politicalhipocrasy

The sins of the past...

 Radical idealism and ideology has no place in the handling of foreign affairs and foreign relations. Global politics is best left to skilled statesmen and negotiators who meticulously plan and set goals and who consistently rely on risk analysis to obtain optimal outcomes. Their methods and manners don't allow for their own idealism or ideology, or that of their superiors to direct, or even influence their work. They must visualize what success looks like from the start. 

The US has had some rock stars in matters of foreign diplomacy. A few examples: George Marshall, the Secretary of State during the Truman presidency. Marshall played a key role in shaping Truman's postwar foreign policy through the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan helped stabilize the European continent and prevent the spread of communism. Marshall won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953. 

Henry Kissinger was secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations. Kissinger accomplished the impossible task of detente with the USSR, establishing relations with China, conducting the Vietnam war negotiations, and of course the 'shuttle diplomacy' in the Middle East. Kissinger's efforts reworked the dynamics of the Cold War. 

James Baker III was Secretary of State for George H.W. Bush who managed diplomacy during the fall of the Soviet Union. He was also responsible for the unification of Germany and the Gulf War unification. 

Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton, the first woman to ever hold the office. She was active in the expansion of NATO, the Balkans and provided valuable leadership in post-Cold War  efforts. 

The world is a different, and much better place thanks to the work of these masters of diplomacy. The legacy of the presidents they served benefitted from their contributions. For other presidents, their legacies will be forever stained  in history because of the lack of efficacy on the part of those they appointed to this office. During the Obama administration Hillary Clinton and John Kerry served in the role. Clinton advocated for the "Reset" with Russia, which ultimately resulted in political disaster. Obama sought to instill fear in American allies with the Russian Reset. He believed that Bush 41 was responsible for worsening relations with Moscow, completely blind to Putin's lust for his interests in Eastern Europe. Obama scrapped a plan to provide radar installations and interceptor missiles for Poland and the Czech Republic. He withdrew brigade-sized combat teams from Europe and set the stage for the first time the US had no combat tanks on the European continent. The Kremlin responded with aggression, culminating with the first invasion of Ukraine. 

Following suit, Obama thought it prudent to cut strategic ties with the Middle East. By December 2011, he had withdrawn every American soldier from Iraq, and empowered the Shiite militias backed by Iran hoping the mullahs would see to America's interests. They did not. Once again, blinded by his ideals, Obama was focused on the nuclear deal with Iran, which today has become a nuclear train wreck. The Arab Spring uprising complicated matters at the time. The Syrian regime began to implode opening the door for the rise of ISIS, stoked by the Russian regime who now felt free rein since America had 'left the building'. Obama now felt compelled to bring American troops into Iraq in 2014, as well as into eastern Syria. 

Obama's misplaced vision for America to no longer be a hegemonic world leader was actually beginning to work. If America wasn't going to be the pre-eminent power of the Pacific Rim, then who would. The answer was right in front of his eyes, yet he still played blind. This brings us to the 2016 election. Can you imagine inheriting the fubar Trump did in his first term? Obama didn't only leave a country divided, on the world stage he literally let the dogs out. We can only hope that Trump, in his second term learns from the sins of the past. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer...

Who defines Quality of Life?

 Throughout the history of the world there have been countless wrongs inflicted upon the innocent. Many have been cases of innocents being caught 'in the middle' of a conflict. Many were subjects of totalitarian rule. Some, even citizens of modern democracies. Those responsible for inflicting pain, suffering, and the loss of life invariably are focused on a goal, or agenda of some sort. It may be retaliation, aggression, political ambition, an act of defense, or offense, or ideological disparity. 

With each new generation comes a new set of conflicts with intended and unintended damages. History tells us that stable democratic regimes are far less likely to inflict hardship and suffering on its citizens. Dictatorships and authoritarian regimes seem to be far less concerned with the plight of the plebeians. In the present day world, the majority of countries have a democratic government. Of the 167 countries with 500k or more population, 58% are democracies of some sort. Some four dozen or so have elements of both democracy and autocracy. 13% or 21 countries are autocracies. The number of countries that are democratically governed has been on an upward trend since the 70's. As the Cold War came to an end and the Soviet-led bloc crumbled, democracy began to spread globally. Of the 75 countries that were known as autocracies in 1987, only 15 were still rated that way three decades later. More than a third had become democracies. 

Amongst the countries with the most advanced democracies, it is surprising to many, including myself, that the United States is not among the top ten. Most advanced democracies tend to score high in areas like political participation, civil liberties, functioning of government, and electoral process. The country most often ranked number one is Norway. Norway has high voter participation, transparent institutions, strong civil liberties, and trust in government. Having spent time in Norway, I can personally attest that the vast majority of Norwegians are multilingual, well-educated and very nice people. Several countries in Northern Europe are amongst the top ten. New Zealand, Canada, Ireland and the Netherlands are also on the list. 

As of the 2024 Democracy Index published by the Economist Intelligence Unit, the United States is ranked 28th out of 167 countries and is classified as a "flawed democracy." The EIU evaluates countries based on five categories; electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties. The US scores high in electoral process and pluralism, it lags in political culture and functioning of government, reflecting challenges such as political polarization and institutional gridlock. Partisan pressure on the electoral process has also become a degrading issue. 

The two categories that bemoan even the most ardent nationalists are political culture and functioning of government. Regrettably, that is an aspect of our democracy that has deteriorated over the past fifty years. Our two-party system of government has become increasingly divisive, polarized, and adversarial. Interestingly, the U.S. doesn't rank in the top ten with regard to standard of living either. While we rank very high in productivity, i.e. GDP per Capita,  at #3, the average life expectancy is lower than all of the countries in the top ten by several years. 

In spite of being a world leader in many respects, the U.S. democratic system of government lags behind in many others. While some metrics indicate we have a lower standard of living than several other nations, there is a key characteristic that must be pointed out. The countries identified as leaders in democratic government and standard of living, all of them in the top ten, practice a more socialistic, welfare state form of government. Social services such as universal healthcare, free or low-cost education, substantial unemployment benefits, strong public pensions, subsidized housing and transportation, social housing and welfare support... All of this and more provided by the government. Which of course translates to higher taxes to support it all. No government in history, anywhere on the planet has ever earned a cent in earned income. 

If other countries enjoy stronger, higher-rated democracies and higher standards of living than the U.S., why don't we emulate their social and democratic structures ourselves so that we might enjoy the same benefits? The answer is simple, because we don't want the government to play a large, dominant role in our lives. We don't want to depend on the government to feed and house us. We want opportunities to work, prosper and remain independent. We want our opportunities to be limited only by our own aspirations, not the government. In spite of many ongoing attempts to instill socialistic structure into our government and culture, the American people have resisted. We want minimal government and more personal freedom. We enjoy lower personal income taxes and generally lower costs of living that most countries. We want personal sovereignty as well as national. Americans have defined their own metrics for quality of life. And that's the way we want it.


Airing the dirty laundry...

 During a recent cabinet meeting Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealed that the Biden's administration's Department of State kept dossiers on American citizens accused of serving as "vectors of disinformation". One of the dossiers was for someone actually sitting in that very Cabinet meeting. For any red-blooded American that is no less than 8.0 on the Richter scale earth-moving shocking. 

This 'department' in the office in the Department of State was established to monitor the social media posts and commentary of American citizens, to identify them as 'vectors of disinformation'. This 'office' was previously known as the Global Engagement Center. Rubio officially closed this office earlier this month. The Global Engagement Center tagged accounts as "Russian personas and proxies" based on criteria like "describing the coronavirus as an engineered bioweapon', blaming 'research conducted at the Wuhan Laboratory' and 'attributing the appearance of the virus to the CIA.'

When reorganizing the  State Department Rubio said the GEC engaged with media outlets and platforms to censor speech it disagreed with. According to journalist Matt Taibbi, the center funded a secret list of subcontractors and helped initiate a form of 'blacklisting' during the pandemic. 

Musk previously described the GEC as "the worst offender in US government censorship and media manipulation." Musk made this statement more than a year before he endorsed Trump in the 2024 presidential race and assumed a role in DOGE. I think it safe to say that Musk was onto what the GEC was doing so the GEC put together a dossier on him. Stay tuned for Rubio to disclose for whom the dossiers were for...

The office of GEC was established by none other than former president Obama in 2016 through an executive order aimed at coordinating counterterrorism messaging to foreign nations. Its scope was later expanded to include countering foreign propaganda and disinformation. And here we are today with two dossiers for high level Trump admin officials lying on the table. 

This office of the GEC under the previous administration costs taxpayers more than $50 million per year. Purposed with actively censoring and silencing American citizens. There have been numerous adjectives used to describe the actions of the two previous democratic administrations, but let's add depraved to the list. And unforgivable...

#constitutionalcrisis #ruleoflaw #dossiers #globalengagementcenter #

The problem with US...

 When you saw the title of this post, you likely thought does he mean us, as in we, or does he mean the United States? The answer is yes. I meant us, as in we and I meant the United States. One in the same. Granted, I have readers all over the world (thank you for reading my blog), but they're very smart people and they know who I am talking about. What I am going to talk about today is some fundamental  problems we are having in America  and exactly what or who is causing them. 

Let me start off with answering the question, up front. We are. Us. And us alone. We are causing many of our own problems. Example, the Russians weren't behind the Russian Hoax. We were. All told, the Russians didn't have anything to do with it. Don't you know they were having a good laugh at our expense? Embarrassing. 

Inflation over the past few years. Can't blame that on anybody outside of 'us'. Was it Covid's fault? Did the coronavirus create trillions in government handouts? It made a lot of people sick but I don't think it had anything to do with writing stimulus checks. Did Mexico or Canada decide to open our borders and let millions of illegal immigrants flood our country, creating housing shortages and drug addictions? Including hardcore criminals and tons of fentanyl? Hardly. We did. It's almost embarrassing to use the pronoun we, but pronouns have been so abused lately, I don't feel that bad. Let's just say I'm being inclusive, I'm including Joe Biden and his cadre of idiots. I'm using 'we' as a very inclusive term. We caused inflation, we opened the borders. Herein lies the root causes of the self-inflicted mayhem. 

Let me break them down: at the top of the list; we don't listen to each other. The framework of our system of government and society is based on civil discourse and debate. Partisan politics is causing our iron framework to rust. It has gone too far into the realm of 'us against them'. 'We' has become more singular than plural. There's more than one 'we'. "We the people" has become we the democrats, or we the republicans. Whatever the other party may say or do, it's wrong. Never mind the merits or the benefits, it's wrong because it was 'their' idea, not ours. Which brought us the current phenomenon known as TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's real. Ridiculous, but real. 

Next up is accountability. When's the last time you heard a high level government official say "I take full responsibility. It was my fault." That's about as rare as rocking horse poop. I'm sure it's happened but history hasn't done well in recording it. It's as though we're all narcissists now. "Not my fault. It's you. You're the problem." 

I'm going to keep this simple, because it really is. There's one more item on the list of root causes. Honesty. Telling the truth. As the prescient and perhaps genius Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) once said, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." If George were alive today, witnessing the current state of affairs, if not completely stunned and speechless, he might say, "I tried to tell you...". In present day politics, sadly to say, telling the truth is an option. One not often chosen. If the truth doesn't facilitate the end game, then it'll have to wait. (Or be omitted...) Orwell was right, the day has come when the truth is revolutionary. It's not the norm anymore. 

So how do we get out of this self-imposed pandemic of social corruption? I'm not one of civilization's great minds, and this is a question that even the brightest might struggle with. Back in the late eighteenth century, there was a group of men who had a vision, and a profound sense of purpose. They convened and fostered what has become a system of government that became a nonpareil. No other country in the history of the world has yet to devise a system of governance that is genuinely of the people, by the people, and for the people. They are the reason we became known as the United States of America. Let's find a way to keep it that way.

#america #trumpderangementsyndrome #civildiscourse #georgeorwell

We have a Constitution and we're almost 250 years old. Why is this happening?...

President Trump was elected and entered office with some specific mandates from the electorate. There were issues the American people were fed up with, as evidenced by the electoral margins, including, immigration and it's associated criminal fallout and societal decay, not to mention out and out lawlessness, the excesses and fraud and waste in the federal government, the blatant abuse of 'lawfare' to punish one's political adversaries, corruption at the federal level (Hunter Biden's laptop, and presidential pardons...), and the bad policies that led to a bad economy, i.e. inflation. There were more, plenty more. 

Trump takes office and within hours, literally, he begins to take action. Of course, the president lacks the power to 'make' laws, only Congress has the power to do that. The closest he can come is executive orders. As the southerners' phrase goes, "Katy bar the door, here they come." 125 so far, in about 90 days. 

Trump campaigned on restoring common sense to government. This resonated with voters, with good reason. He brought Elon Musk in as director of government efficiency, tasked with rooting out programs, agencies, directives, systems, and practices that involved outright corruption, fraud, waste and lacked true productive purpose in government. Theoretically, and practically sensible on all levels. Obviously, the fallout was programs would end and agencies would cease to exist, meaning benefits would cease and jobs would be lost. Illegal aliens, especially those engaged in criminal activity would be prosecuted and/or deported. 

All this is happening and not at the lackadaisical, lethargic, beaureacratic  rate that we are used to seeing. Progressive ideologies have been offended and with the Democratic Party currently operating in a leaderless vacuum, democrats were faced with the question they haven't faced in four years, 'how do we stop Trump?' Republicans now control the executive and legislative branches of government, so what's left? The courts, of course. 

In spite of attempting to destroy and discredit Trump through nefarious lawfare before he was elected, unsuccessfully, and lacking other viable options, they decided to try again. Democrats and progressives are a persistent, if ignorant lot. It didn't take them long to figure out our sometimes fallible court systems and its Swiss-cheese-like procedures. In short order, we have federal district judges issuing injunctions delaying and even halting executive actions. Almost exclusively, these injunctions were being ordered by liberal, activist judges issuing orders and injunctions as if their jurisdictions included the entire nation. Which they don't. Courts are for parties that have suffered identifiable, non-speculative injuries and damages directly caused by a defendant and are addressable by a judge. Such is not the circumstances of these cases being brought before the federal district courts attempting to stop Trump's executive actions. These judges are in effect making policy by nullifying the policy choices of the elected administration. They are not settling the rights of the parties to a lawsuit, they are enacting law on the nation, far beyond their jurisdiction for as long as the injunction lasts. 

The judicial branch, all of it, is tasked with saying and interpreting what the law is. They cannot write it or enforce it. They do not have the authority to make policy, that prerogative is given to the political branches accountable to the people whose lives are affected. The courts role is to settle the rights of the parties involved and nothing more. 


The constitutional authority in this ignorance/blindness to separation of power is Congress. For unknown reasons, Congress has been unassertive, even silent so far. Illegal criminal aliens are being deported, allegedly without due process, taxes are being imposed (tariffs) that have and continue to demonstrably damage the American economy and so far the Big Cahuna (Congress) is yet to utter a word. The solution to these issues we face doesn't lie with the person we elected to the office of the President. He has rules he must follow. When he fails to do that there is one government body he must answer to. But they must insist that he do so. Mr. Speaker, what say you?...


#tariffs #constitutionalcrisis #federaldistrictcourts #lawfare #DOGE

Sucks to be Xi...

 At present, Trump's tariff situation is unpredictable, even chaotic. We are all well aware of the vacuum effect it has had on the equities markets and America's savings accounts. Trump is doing a lot of good things regarding national security, immigration, and advocating for American industry. But his tariff program is wreaking havoc and destruction. It was not well planned and is being terribly executed. I think Trump has shot himself in the foot and refuses to admit it hurts. However, he is taking steps to ameliorate the situation, however token some of them may be. He has initiated a 90 day pause for effecting most of the tariffs with but one exception; China. This month he raised the general tariff rate for Chinese goods to 145%. Essentially, this closes most of the American market off to China. Any way you look at it, that is major. The US accounts for more than a third of global consumer spending. 

For many and various reasons the world has been deglobalizing for years. The Trump Liberation Day tariffs are significantly speeding up the process, further threatening the stability and well-being of the People's Republic of China and other export-driven economies. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has essentially put a nail in the coffin of globalization. The Covid pandemic dealt a massive blow to connectivity between nations, companies and people as well. 

Practically every country involved in trade has tariffs. With the American consumer market off limits to China, other countries are not going to allow China to flood their markets with goods that otherwise would be sold to the US. Most of them are not large enough to absorb China's massive export volume, and they won't allow China to butcher their national industries. A major problem, for China, is Trump's tariffs come at the worst possible time. China's economy is in dire straits. Export factories in southern China are closing as orders dwindle. Workers are returning to hometowns subsisting on farms. China is experiencing its version of '2008'. Xi's predecessor, Hu Jintao attempted to avoid a downturn by launching the biggest stimulus program in history, causing China to take on enormous debt. (Sound familiar?) Today, China's total debt to GDP ratio is approaching 400%. No typo, 400%. That is not sustainable. For years there have been a series of high profile debt defaults especially in the property sector. 70% of wealth in China is in property. 

And here came the tariffs cutting off China's biggest customer. Makes sense that Xi's best course of action would be to call Trump and work something out. Make a deal as Trump says. The chances of that happening though are about as good as raising a bumper crop of corn on the north slope of Alaska. Xi cannot back down or make concessions without appearing to be weak as a leader. Such would lead to challenges to his position. There are already signs of discontent with his rule, especially in the military. "China does not flinch from any suppression," he claims. If he doesn't compromise, China's economy will fail. If their economy fails, he will fail. Yes, it sucks to be Xi...

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' b...