You say you want a revolution, well, you know...

 First, let's bring up a few observations. A CBS News survey found that 51% of a survey sample expected a peaceful transfer of power after the 2024 election. 49% thought the year would end in violence. Surprising? It sure as hell is to me. Seems maybe the events of January 6, 2021 have cast a spell on many. There was plenty of violence in 2024, and it has not abated in 2025. If anything, it's gotten worse. Polling by Politico suggests that Americans are getting accustomed to the threat of political violence. 

Politico has found a majority of Americans believe that the 'assassination culture' will grow and that a high-profile candidate for office will be killed. Just as Charlie Kirk was senselessly killed by a deranged cretin. For the record, most assassinations are committed by deranged cretins, who typically claim some invalid political cause. Truth be told, they themselves don't really know if their political inclinations lie to the left or the right. All they really care about is they didn't agree with what their victim said. 55% of those polled by Politico said political violence will become increasingly common. Most Americans are not aligned with this prospect, but shockingly, nearly a quarter of the poll respondents told Politico that political violence can be justified...

Sorry, I just fell out of my chair, and at my age it took a few moments to get up.  have to make an assumption here, that most of the Politico respondents have some awareness or knowledge of some sort to at least offer a 'valid' opinion. "Political violence can be justified"? It cannot. At no time, anywhere, at any place can it be justified. "Younger Americans were significantly more likely than older ones to say violence can be justified. More than one in three Americans under the age of 45 agreed with that belief." 

So what exactly is leading younger Americans to believe that political violence is justified? According to some sources, almost half of Americans believe America's best days are behind us. Amongst Americans aged 18-24, 55% "agree" that the American dream no longer exists. 52% said that to "make life better in America" we need radical change. The age divide is distinct. Nearly two-thirds of adults aged 24 and younger endorsed radical but unspecified revision to the 'social compact'. Majorities in every age bracket said the same save those over 65. 

I am in no way endorsing Politico's 'polling' but they claim 35% say the US needs a revolution. A view that cuts across party lines, roughly a third of both parties, right and left. It appears that the populist view is now political violence is a revolutionary act. Digging beneath the surface, it would appear that contemporary political violence is more manifested in promoting a political agenda. There seems to be a false presumption that their cynicism is widely shared, when in fact it is not. 

Every generation has its own set of difficulties to overcome, whether they be a result of politics, economics, world affairs or anything else. Life is hard, it was for our ancestors and so it shall be for our great grandchildren. Todays' graduates are struggling with getting good jobs, buying a house, just generally getting a foothold on a good life. Is political violence going to solve, or even improve the situation they face? Or, heaven forbid, assassinate someone you disagree with? Or will it only serve to continue the insanity or perhaps make it worse for themselves and possibly even, their offspring?...

The US and the UK. We now have something miserable in common...

 Immigration has strained Britain to it's breaking point. England is experiencing a virulent sense of frustration that isn't going away anytime soon. Just as we have in America, going back to the beginning of the Biden administration. More than 12 million immigrants were allowed to pass unvetted through our borders during that time. Included in that number were a very large group of violent criminals. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of American lives have been brutally victimized by these violent immigrants. This doesn't even mention the countless lives lost at the hands of these criminals. The Trump administration is doing its level best to rid the country of the vermin, all the while tolerating absurd and often violent protesters impeding the efforts of law enforcement. To Trump's credit, at least the US borders are closed to illegal immigration. England is yet to reach that milestone. 

English citizens are outraged and angry. Justifiably so. London, Manchester and Birmingham are no longer majority English. In 1971, London was 97.7 percent English. By 2021, it is only 36.8 percent English. Manchester was 95.8 percent English in 1971 but only 48.7 precent by 2021. Birmingham was 99.6 percent English in 1951, but only 44.4 percent English in 2021. Astonishing. It gives the phrase "open borders" new meaning...

A former professor of political science at the University of Kent has argued that unless something is done, the British people will become a minority in their own country by 2063. Considering that native birthrates have drastically declined, it's likely that this date will arrive sooner rather than later. The Office for National Statistics reports that in 2023, 37.3 percent of all live births in Britain were to parents "where either one or both were born outside the UK". That number is actually much higher in London. 

The situation has sparked rioting, including outside of hotels housing immigrants. The rioting will likely continue to escalate in reaction to the broad demographic changes, in particular to the Muslim "grooming gangs" and widespread immigrant crime. Non-European immigration began to increase in small levels in 1948 with the passage of the British Nationality Act. Almost immediately, reports of migrant sex crimes began in Bradford, Kent, West Yorkshire, Lancashire, Hartlepool, Faversham, Nelson, Halifax, Oldham and many other locations. Operation Stovewood found that nearly two thirds of convicted grooming gang offenders in Rotherham -62%- were known to be of Pakistani background even though Pakistanis then made up only about four percent of the town's population. 

The increase of non-European immigration to more than a million a year during PM Boris Johnson's term has aggravated the issue. Sustained mass immigration took root as a Tory norm during David Cameron's term. Statistically, Britain has now overtaken Sweden as the rape capital of Europe with 71,227 cases reported in 2024 according to the ONS. 

Another very negative fallout from immigration has been the increased competition in the job market for younger generations. Their opportunities are dwindling and their quality of life is being threatened. In 2024 the unemployment rate for young people (16-24) was 14.2 percent, which is almost three times higher than Germany's. The Institute for Public Policy Research indicated in 2011 that Britain would be 750,000 houses short of housing demand by 2025. This year the Center for Policy Studies has revealed that that number is closer to 6.5 million. 

Britain is multicultural and no longer even close to 'distinctly' British. Like the US, they have allowed far too many to enter the country that not only fail to assimilate but actively destroy long-standing customs, traditions and norms. An arm of the British NHS recently published a defense of first-cousin marriage... There have been countless occurrences of arrests due to saying or publishing on social media the harms to England and the English imposed by foreigners. 

Shameful and failed leadership are to blame. From America, we feel your pain England.

The US is headed for tyranny, and fascism. Or is it?...

 "No Kings Day" recently set a record, or so it was claimed, of 2,600+ protests across the country. The protests were mostly peaceful demonstrations organized not only in the US but around the world. Their stated purpose was to express opposition to what the participants see as rising authoritarianism in the Trump administration. There is the perception, and I emphasize the word 'perception', that the constitutional democratic form of government of the United States is under threat of, I'm not exactly sure what the protesters are afraid of, but I presume, ceasing to exist. That we are entering into a fascist dictatorship ruled by Donald Trump. 

Peaceful protests and demonstrations are a civil right in the US, a right afforded to every US citizen. They are a hallmark of a free, civil society. Are we really on the brink of authoritarian rule? Fascism? Naziism? Dictatorship? In the United States every citizen is entitled to their own opinion, as well as the right to openly speak their opinion. However, while it may not be a requirement of law, every citizen also bears the moral responsibility of adhering to the principles of right and wrong. Every American has the right to call Donald Trump whatever moniker they choose. Nazi, fascist, Hitler, that's a civil right. Untold numbers of American soldiers gave their lives so that we may preserve that right. 

When the activist fervor carries into violence, then there are no rights. At that point, it becomes a crime and the rule of law comes into play. Attacking federal officers, ramming personal vehicles into Immigration and Customs vehicles, endangering the lives of federal officers conducting federal sanctioned operations is not only illegal, it's morally inept. Far too many activists are under the misconception that ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, are conducting raids on innocent Americans. The vast majority of these raids have been targeted against illegal aliens with criminal records. And these criminal records are not pedestrian offenses. Rape, murder, drug offenses, human trafficking, assault, property crimes, et cetera. Unfortunately, the victims of these crimes are inevitably American citizens. It's worth noting that far too many of these victims are deceased as a result of the crimes inflicted upon them. And the claims of ripping innocent, hard-working victims from their homes and families is patently baseless. Illegal entry, re-entry or remaining without authorization is a crime. It's in the statutes and has been for generations. The fact that Biden and Obama chose to ignore immigration laws does not revoke them. The fact that the Trump administration is enforcing them does not make them inhumane. 

If leftist activists are frightened that we are devolving into authoritarian rule, I suggest enlightening oneself with some knowledge of history. Was czarist Russia a constitutional democracy before Stalin and Lenin took control? Was Germany a constitutional democracy before Hitler assumed power? Does anyone of sound mind and some knowledge of world history believe that 535 elected members of Congress who hold the power of impeachment believe that a president could choose to, and succeed in eliminating the legislative branch? About the same odds as a meteorite hitting planet earth and destroying all forms of life. It's a possibility, but highly unlikely...

The Age of Obama

 Is over. Even Barack Obama knows that, though he's reluctant to acknowledge it. As Trump was finalizing  a deal to end the war between Israel and Hamas which basically, repudiated everything Obama had ever had a hand in regarding the Middle East. In a recent podcast interview, the ever arrogant, pompous ex-pres demoaned the politicization of the FBI and Justice department as though he didn't play an instrumental part in their corruption. It's especially contemptible considering his role in various and sundry scandals is now documented public knowledge. 

Obama now appears nonplussed, wondering how the nation came to embrace Trump, a man who in almost every ideological way set out to undo everything he had 'accomplished'. Once thought to be a transcendent figure in American politics, despite the incessant media accolades and unmerited awards, Obama's legacy has been eclipsed by his Republican successor. And for very good reasons. 

Obama utilized the federal bureaucracy to push the country to adopt leftist social views. Which the Biden admin blindly and willingly continued. Most presidents leave Washington after their time in office is over to avoid the impression that they are trying to manipulate their successors. Obama pretentiously did not. It is clear and evident to even this most casual observer that Obama was directing the marionette that was Joe Biden. It was Obama who unleashed the intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice on political foes. And it was Obama who put into motion the DEI foolishness that permeated much of the Western world. 

It's not a well-known fact, but indeed is a fact that Obama issued an executive order to establish a "Coordinated Government-Wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce" back in 2011. This ignominious order coincided with the timing of legacy, mainstream media racializing practically every topic written about. 

The left has long sought to transform American culture not in alignment with its own cultural and political goals. Clearly, Obama played a significant role in the incipient stages of the Great Awokening. It appears Obama's legacy is that of abject failure. A century-old progressive movement that collapsed under its own contradictions, unrealized ideals and failure to connect with reality. 

Fewer young people are identifying as trans...

 A very surprising shift is taking place in the gender and sexual identities of young Americans. Data from the Heterodox Social Science Report shows that since 2023 both trans and queer identity among young Americans has dropped sharply with Generation Z. 

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) which conducts a large annual survey of US undergraduates, polled over 60,000 students in 2025. Just 3.6% of respondents this year identified as something other than male or female. In 2024 that figure was 5.2% and 6.8% in 2022 and 2023. The number of trans-identified students has halved in just two years. 

This trend is especially marked in elite institutions. Andover Phillips Academy in Boston surveys over 75% of its students each year. In 2023, 9.2% identified as neither male nor female. In 2025, that number was 3%. A similar story comes from Brown University. 5% of students identified as non-binary in 2022 and 2023, by 2025 that share had dropped to 2.6%. 

More of the surveys inquired about sexual orientation than gender identity. Based on the data in the graph, the pattern appears to be rising non-conformity from 2010 until 2023, with a near 10 point drop in the ensuing two years. 

It's tempting to speculate about the reasons behind the rise and fall of trans and queer identities. Mental illness among American teens has fallen since 2021 as confirmed by the FIRE data.  Changes in mental health over time, especially depression, made s significant difference in the trend of trans and queer identities over this period. The drop in mental health issues encompassed all social groups, including trans and queer youth. The post-pandemic decline in mental illness did not immediately trigger a decline in sexual and gender non-conformity, that shift didn't occur until a year or two later. There is no clear evidence to indicate what is driving the retreat from alternative gender and sexual identity. However, there is clear evidence that it is happening. Ironically, "woke" attitudes such as shouting down those perceived as hostile to transgenderism hasn't changed much since 2020. 

It appears that trans and queer identification has declined among young Americans even as levels os wokeness and religion have not. For young people, gender and sexual identity are now independent fashions that rise and fall separately from other cultural and political currents. This is quite an unexpected post-progressive development that education and media establishments will be reluctant to acknowledge. 

Is legalizing marijuana really a good idea?...

 Over the last decade a handful of states have mulled the idea of legalizing the use of recreational marijuana. Some have forged ahead with the legislation to do so, some have not. As of 2025, 24 states have legalized the recreational use of marijuana. That's close to half of the 50 states. Fourteen states have legalized the restricted medical use of marijuana. Doctor's prescription only. The standards for obtaining a prescription are not known and not a subject of this article. I am making no contest as to the validity of medical use marijuana. My understanding is marijuana can be quite effective in alleviating the pain associated with certain cancers and the treatment of them. I have personal experience with the pain associated with cancer and chemotherapy and I am 100% behind anything that can alleviate this pain.

But this is not the point. Cancer patients who are suffering indescribable pain are not typically out driving and getting into accidents. Recreational users are. Data shows these 'users' are involved in a disproportionately high number of auto fatalities. We have known for a long time, a very long time the relationship between drinking and auto accidents and fatalities. There is no need to delve into those statistics. It is worth noting the relationships between driving while under the influence of THC and auto accidents and fatalities. 

Going back to the days of the repeal of prohibition and the invention of automobiles, there is a dark relationship between driving and the consumption of alcohol. The loss of life due to driving while intoxicated is inestimable, beyond frightening, and it continues today. But we have now included a new dimension to this lunacy. Driving while high. As I mentioned earlier, almost half of the states have approved recreational use. I might ask the question, what is the 'purpose' of drinking alcohol, if not recreational? I dare say, there's never been a medical professional ever who has prescribed alcohol for a medical condition. Obviously, alcohol is exclusively for recreational purposes. It serves no medicinal purpose. When these 24 states passed these laws, was due consideration given to the risks associated with driving while impaired? I think not.

A recent study conducted in Ohio, which is one of the 'legal recreational states' proffers the following statistics: 42% of drivers in Montgomery County Ohio who died in traffic accidents over a six year period from 2018 to 2024tested positive for THC. Any way you look at it, that is very competitive with traffic fatalities due to driving while under the influence of alcohol. I wouldn't expect results much different from other 'recreational use states'. 

Who exactly benefits from these liberal laws? The recreational users? Of course. It is without doubt a fledgling industry within itself, as was alcohol in the early days.  We are approaching the benchmark where about half of traffic fatalities are due to driving while high. Is the high from a joint worth dying for? Or taking the lives of innocents in an accident? How is this net effect any different from driving while under the influence of alcohol? The net result is people die, does it matter what the inebriated person was indulging in?... 

Having the right to indulge in the recreational use of THC products is not the issue. Just as the right to imbibe alcohol is legal. But no one has the right to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of any substance that impairs the ability to safely operate a vehicle. This puts not only their life but the lives of others at risk. We have well over a century of evidence that the results of this can be catastrophic. About 12,000 people each year are killed in auto accidents involving drunk driving. In 2021, there were about 11,000 drug involved traffic fatalities reported. This includes crashes where one or more drugs were detected, not THC alone and not necessarily causal. Obviously, there is a surfeit of recreational drugs, most of which are illegal and will always be. A few peer-reviewed studies comparing crash rates before and after legalization across states estimate increases in fatalities that could amount to 1,000 - 1,400 additional traffic deaths per year. Data for traffic fatalities where THC was known to be the cause of the crash is in an incipient stage. But the pattern is already emerging. Legalization may have solved the issue of reducing the amount of drug offenses for a 'seemingly harmless' drug that many will indulge in anyway, but at what cost? It sort of seems like throwing fuel on the fire...

Colorado: beautiful state, ugly policy.

 When Americans think of Colorado, we think of beautiful, scenic mountains , clear mountain air, and not just freedom but a 'sense' of freedom. It is without doubt one of our most beautiful states, of many. Many alluring advertisements attempting to convince foreigners to visit the US shows photos of Colorado landscapes. Visitors from the world over as well as the US make a stop in Colorado a must. 

If you are a visitor, what Colorado has to offer cannot be beat. If you are a resident or a counselor, there are issues. In 2019, Colorado enacted a law that restricts counselors (lawyers) from having conversations regarding gender and sexuality with clients under the age of 18. Any counselor who engages in any such conversations with clients under the age of 18 could face steep fines, up to $5,000 for each violation, possible suspension from practice and even revocation of license. 

A Colorado lawyer challenged this lawsuit. The Supreme Court heard her case today, and there are aspects of her case that should lead to a ruling in her favor. A ruling leading to free speech prevailing. Colorado bans the expression of viewpoints with which it disagrees. If a young girl comes to this lawyer, whom we'll call "Beth' and says she thinks she may be a boy, and wants to realign her identity with her sex,  Colorado law bans that conversation. The law does, however, allow conversations to impel that girl down a path of gender transition, which might include dangerous drugs and procedures. Colorado is forcibly obliging counselors and their clients to succumb to its ideological demands or refuse help. 

Colorado's misplaced paternalism harms the very children it aims to protect. Colorado law declares 'change' a forbidden goal if a client seeks conversation to help them recover an identity consistent with the biological sex. Studies show that roughly 90 percent of children who struggle with gender issues before puberty  will regain comfort with their sex over time. Colorado's law encourages these children to a path of gender transition. Colorado law deprives children of the many reported benefits that can come from counseling, including a better understanding, improved mental health, and increased hope that they can live consistently with their faith. Many clients believe that their religious identity is more fundamental than their self-perceptions of gender and sexuality. 

For whatever reason, Colorado's state government goads counselors and clients into a forced ideological path. Unfortunately, this path ignores free speech, client autonomy, and restricts available help which leads to sabotaging help in the counseling room. The most helpful ways to discuss gender and sexuality, which are widely debated natters of moral and spiritual significance should be left to the counselor and client, not the government. 

This matter is now before the U.S. Supreme Court to reaffirm that freedom. By all means and matters it should protect free speech from Colorado's attempt to thwart it. The rule of law is the rule of law. No state is allowed to opt out... This includes Colorado...

Celebrating Communism; raising the Chinese flag in Philadelphia

 Tomorrow, on September 30, Philadelphia's Office of Immigrant Affairs is planning to raise the red flag emblazoned with the star of the Chinese Communist Party to celebrate the anniversary of the establishment of the CCP.  There's more than just a mere touch of irony involved here. Less than a mile from City Hall, the site of the proposed CCP flag-raising, Betsy Ross stitched the first American flag in a small house on Arch Street, at the direct request of President George Washington. The Stars and Stripes was adopted by the incipient United States on June 14, 1777. It was proudly flown during the Revolutionary War that resulted in our independence. Very near to Betsy Ross's house is the site of John Dunlap's press that disseminated the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1788.  

Celebrating the authoritarianism represented by the CCP is antithetical to the essence of freedom and American values. Is this 'virtue-signaling, tolerance for diversity, or just a patent disgrace? Philadelphia has long been the center of gravity for American freedom. A public celebration of the Chinese Communist Party, which is fast becoming the single greatest national security threat to the United States in the 21st century, is warped.

The proposed event is being sponsored by the Pennsylvania United Chinese Coalition, part of a network of organizations attempting to boost the CCP's reputation and influence within the US under the guise of 'cultural exchange'. While it may have been intended to be a symbolic gesture, it is nonetheless crass and vacuous. Here is the real underpinning irony; many Chinese-Americans are in Philadelphia because they were seeking the freedom and opportunity denied to them by the CCP. The Chinese in Philadelphia are likely loathe to celebrate the regime that persecuted them. This 'ceremony' is likely more of an insult to them, not to mention a reminder that they're not far enough removed for the CCP. Philadelphia's Office of Immigrant Affairs needs to rethink this. We should be celebrating American Freedom, not Communist oppression. Just ask the Chinese immigrants...

Discord, Dissonance, Hate, Murder, What's Next? Dare we ask...

 It's difficult to say exactly when the 'divide' began to develop, but it has been over a fairly long period of time. Decades, for sure. As children we're not really aware of which direction the political winds are blowing, but there are some major political events that we will remember even at a very young age. In November, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed. Johnson was in office when the bill passed, but Kennedy first proposed it. I remember both very well. I was ten years old. I was born during the Eisenhower administration and recall seeing him on television. It was black & white back then of course and stations signed off at midnight to the National Anthem. The good old days...  I don't recall my parents ever declaring they were democrat or republican, but they were indeed patriots and supported the president. Eisenhower was a Republican and Kennedy was a Democrat. Both great presidents. No hint of a political divide back then. 

During the Reagan and Bush admins, any ideological political divide that existed was subdued and mostly irrelevant. Compared to the present political climate, this was a very calm period in politics. Along comes Bill Clinton. The Whitewater Scandal, Travelgate, Filegate, and ultimately Monicagate. Scandal after scandal, there were those unfortunate ones who lost their jobs and reputations, but such never included the Clintons. Except of course Monicagate which resulted in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. In January, 1998, Bill Clinton on national TV made his famous statement, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." As he said this he shook his right forefinger at the nation for emphasis. In August 1998, Clinton admitted to an "inappropriate" relationship with Lewinsky. The House impeached Clinton in December 1998 on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. In February 1999, the Senate trial acquitted on both counts. Oddly, the Republicans held the majority in the Senate but could not remove Clinton from office without a 2/3 majority. Obviously, the democrats would not support the move to impeach. 

Arguably, there were a number of points in history that could be tagged as the genesis of the political, ideological divide the country is experiencing today. In my opinion, the above described event is a prime contender. The president of the United States screws a 20-something year-old intern in the Oval Office, is impeached and his party refuses to vote for impeachment?... Despite his DNA being on her blue dress? How much more egregious could his conduct get before the Democrats would vote to impeach? From that point forward the impetus to 'protect the incumbent Democrat' by the party members, and increasingly as time passed by the liberal-leaning mainstream media began to snowball. There are dozens upon dozens of examples but it has become tiresome to recount them. So I won't. They are all a matter of public record. 

Fast forward to today. The divide is so real, and raw. So raw that a young radical, leftist murdered a conservative activist speaker on a university campus in Utah. Simply because he was tired of his perceived "hate". I say perceived because the majority does not align with his speech being 'hate'. Not everyone, including myself, agreed with everything Charlie Kirk said. The Civil Rights Act was not a mistake. In broad, general terms and point by point, it was no mistake. There have been numerous misrepresentations about what he said and meant, but the Civil Rights Act was not a mistake. It was a requirement. It was necessary. 

But let's put Charlie Kirk aside for a moment, God rest his soul. He was a good person. He loved his family, he loved God. Give him credit. But, here we are. In a nutshell, we have right and left. Should it be so simple. We have far-left and far-right. The 'fringe'. The 'extremists'. Is each actually a part of the divide? Is the far-right' actually 'right'? Ditto for the left? We see 'markers' that cause us to tag them as right or left, but are they really? Or are they in reality just 'extremists'? Prone to violence, even to the extreme of taking anothers' life? Taking another's life is a heinous act of insanity, even if transitory. Blame it on the right, blame it on the left, what difference does it make? It's a criminal act. Let's blame it on criminal tendency. Blaming it on the left or the right is a waste of time.  

Now, let's move past that. We know how far we have come and how wide the divide has become. How do we fix it? Can we fix it? How much worse, how many people must die before we can make it better. Let's go ahead and get optimistic, before we can stop it. I wish I could answer that. I wish anyone could. If we look at history, when we reached such a divisive point in the past, war broke out. Did the war solve it? No, but changes were made and we went on. We, eventually unitedThe problem is lives were lost, thousands of lives. God help us it doesn't take a war to make those necessary changes this time. 

The tax you didn't even know you were paying...

 We've all heard the old adage "There are only two things that are guaranteed in life; death and taxes". Hard to argue with that axiom. Taxes are endless; income, property, estate, sales, inheritance, capital gains, excise, luxury, tariffs, hotel/lodging, motor vehicle...  And more. But there is one tax not listed here that we all pay at some time, some of us more than others. Much more. It's an insidious tax for which there are no statues that codify it. But it's real, very real. That tax is time. 

Most discussions of inequality focus on wealth gaps and income. But there's an equally sinister version of inequality that doesn't pit the rich against the poor. It's the administrative state's pilfering a valuable resource from anyone trying to get ahead and improve their life. Time. 

Time inequality is less visible, harder to measure and more harmful than income inequality. Modern life and liberal market advocates have achieved a steady increase in individuals' leisure time. Work/life balance is a goal of any corporate environment these days. In the past those with fewer means labored from sunup to sundown to survive, they now enjoy more time for family, rest and improving their lives. Lassez-faire delivered this miracle; but government bureaucracies are surreptitiously taking it back. 

Navigating government systems is like a second job that doesn't pay the bills. Renewing your drivers license, that's a half day down the tubes. Applying for social security benefits? Lots of luck with that. Starting a side business? Expect to spend months navigating complex licensing requirements, completing paperwork, obtaining inane approvals, and making repeat visits. These are beyond mere annoyances, they're regressive, invisible taxes involving time, imposing the greatest burden on those with the least resources. A 2016 study by researchers at the consulting firm Management Lab revealed that bureaucratic waste - including delays and over regulation cost America 17 percent of its GDP. This number represents real hours lost, opportunities denied, and lives hindered. The well-to-do have ways around this. They can hire assistants, pay for expedited services, or simply take time off without financial strain. But for the poor, every government imposed delay comes with a tangible cost: lost wages, missed shifts, and less time with family. I didn't even mention frustration and stress.

A maze of occupational licensing laws govern over twenty percent of U.S. jobs. In many states to obtain a license for a job one must pay fees, pass tests and complete sometimes hundreds of hours of training. It's not just money being extracted, excessive amounts in many cases, but time. For example, in New Mexico to obtain a cosmetology license one must complete more than 1,600 hours of training. Requirements such as this are intended to protect incumbents who benefit from high hurdles to eliminate competition. 

To compound the problem, even after meeting the costly, time-consuming requirements, many find themselves blocked by arbitrary bureaucratic vetoes. Policies like 'certificates of need' allow government officials to decide, often without justification, that an individual's services aren't needed, regardless of that person's qualifications. Some people who are hindered by arbitrary hurdles seek help from the courts. Legal recourse can be a marathon as well, not to mention unaffordable by most. The Supreme Court case Sackett v EPA involved a family that wanted to build a modest home on their property in Idaho. The EPA claimed jurisdiction over their property and threatened absurd fines unless they obtained an expensive permit. The couple fought back, and won. But it took a full sixteen years to vindicate their rights. Is this government overreach or sheer stupidity? Both, I suppose, but a little heavy on the stupidity. 

What can be done about this? Actually, a lot. Lawmakers can repeal these ignorant, baseless licensure requirements. Government permission is not needed for jobs that pose no risk to the public. Streamlining government processes; if it takes more than 30 days, requires multiple in-person visits, or can't be completed on-line, then the process is broken. Implement response time caps, default approvals, and digital filing for everything. Regulatory audits shouldn't measure only monetary costs, they should also measure the time burden. Courts should treat bureaucratic time-wasting, particularly when it burdens or prevents people's right and ability to earn a living, as a matter of legal concern. Courts reflexively defer to regulators determination that a law is necessary, even when the law blocks a person from earning a living. If a law unnecessarily consumes people's time without a clear public benefit or need, the courts should strike it down. 

Every unnecessary delay, form and regulation is an insidious, hidden tax on our most precious, unrecoverable resource: time. And that tax is anything but equal. On an individual basis, time is a very limited resource. The time tax is real and it's time to treat it that way...

Getting the Job Done.

A couple of weeks ago a New York Appellate Court dismissed an unconstitutional and disgraceful $500million penalty on President Trump and his businesses. At the time, incidentally, New York Attorney General Letitia James was getting busted for mortgage fraud.  Rewind a little further and have a look at all the declassified documents released by Tulsi Gabbard, John Ratcliffe and Kash Patel that show the entire RussiaGate hoax was quarterbacked by then president Obama and Hillary Clinton. A scrutiny of the events reveals a collapse of the legal and deep-state forces against president Trump. One could arguably say such reveals explicit details of the ongoing collapse of the Democratic Party. 

Not only could the deep-state not defeat Mr. Trump and the forces of treachery and sedition break him, the prominent liars are themselves now facing criminal indictment. To ice the deception cake, Trump was re-elected. Quite a nightmare for Obama, Clinton, the deep-state, and the Democratic Party. It appears that all those who participated in the Russian hoax and various other phony trials, they're getting fired form their jobs and lawyering up. 

As if that's not enough, Trump is running a vastly successful administration in terms of economic policy, domestic policy, foreign policy, immigration policy et al. Oh, lest we forget, law and order. He closed the open border. Not only could they not put him in prison, or bust his businesses, or keep him off the ballot, or tie him to the Russia hoax, he is now succeeding in virtually every initiative he's put forward. In spite of numerous judicial hurdles (overreaching federal district judges) the judicial system appears to be working. As bad, inept and corrupt as some of these judges have been, with all of their political biases and weaponization of lawfare, Trump has prevailed. Hey, he may be a bit of pompous jerk at times, but he's getting the job done...

Our True Heroes...

 I like writing about politics and statesmanship, heaven knows there's plenty to write about that. I'm going to take a break today though from my predisposed political bent and talk about a different topic. This is one of my life topics, and a very important life at that. 

My precious granddaughter who is sixteen years old has been suffering from cancer for over ten years now. It's a very serious and life-threatening form of brain cancer called metastatic epitheloid glioneuronal. When she was initally diagnosed, the prognosis was grim. She was in the care of a team of doctors at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston. They decided that surgery was the best initial approach. They operated and were able to remove 'most' of the tumor. As is often the case with cancer, especially in the brain, the tumor ensconced itself in the cranial cavity like hot lava oozing down a mountainside, embedding itself in every nook and crevice along the way. Their efforts to remove almost all the tumor was nothing short of miraculous. Years went by and she lived a normal childhood life. 

Then, it began to rear its ugly existence once again.   At the time there were some cutting-edge treatments available; radiation and proton therapy. I can't offer much of an explanation of these therapies as such is way above my pay grade. But empirical evidence convinces me that it is a life-saver, at least it was for my granddaughter. After the treatment program she was diagnosed as 'in remission'. Some of the tumor, which was now greatly reduced in size was still there but determined to be 'dormant'. One pitfall is the radiation procedures can and do have side-effects. Hers was Moya-moya. This is a rare progressive condition that affects blood vessels in the brain. Doctors were near certain it was caused by the massive doses of radiation she had received. Months later, she suffered a stroke. 

She survived the stroke and after extensive rehab was able to resume a near normal life once again. A few more 'more-or-less' uneventful years passed. One evening, recently, she began having severe headaches and vomiting and was rushed to the emergency room. Cat-scans and MRI's revealed the tumor had grown and was spreading again. Once again an oracular team of doctors convened to determine the best path forward. Because we humans can only endure so much radiation in our lives, radiation/proton therapy was not an option. Which only left one. Surgery. Surgery is by nature fraught with risk. Any type of surgery, some more or less than others. Brain surgery is likely the apex on the risk curve. And for the second time... The first time she had brain surgery she was a mere five years old. To a five year old, brain surgery, toe surgery, what's the difference. Everyone around her was telling her you're going to be fine. That was good enough. The second time though, she's sixteen years old with a significantly heightened sense of self awareness. She's a very bright young lady and knew the gravitas of the situation this time and she was scared to death. The moments I spent with her just before the surgery, seeing her fearfulness was heart-breaking and life-changing for me. 

She not only survived the surgery she came out like Rocky pumping his fists in the air on the steps of the museum in the movie "Rocky". The morning after the surgery she was awake and talking almost as if nothing had happened. I felt as if I had entered an alternate existence. How can this be happening? The sense of relief was probably akin to being rescued from a tsunami. We were prepared for whatever was to be, but ultimately were granted a God-given reprieve. 

This little girl in her short sixteen years of life has endured more pain and suffering than most people endure in a lifetime. And if you were to walk in her room at the moment you would see a smile brighter than the sun. She is my hero. If I can muster the courage I have seen in her for the rest of my days, I will be proud. The other heroes I have encountered in this ordeal are the gifted doctors that have so compassionately cared for her. And saved her life, more than once. There are a great deal of really smart, gifted people in the world. And then, there are doctors. Getting up in the morning (actually all hours of the day and night...) and going to work and saving someone's life. We are just so proud, glad and blessed that on one of those days, the life they saved was my precious granddaughter. Again. 

Godspeed to doctors the world over. 

Social Media, let's pull back the cover and have a look...

 In the late 90's and into the early 2000's social media began to take a foothold. Early sites like SixDegrees, Friendster, and MySpace introduced online social networking, but were still mostly the province of younger, internet-savvy groups. By the mid-2000's, MySpace had peaked, and for a time was the most visited site in the U.S. FaceBook launched in 2004 and expended beyond college campuses in 2006. Once it opened up to the general public and added features like News Feed (2006) it became the dominant social network. It was around this time that social media stopped being just for 'techies' or students and was used by families, businesses, and politicians. In the 2010's, with the rise of smartphones, especially after the iPhone appeared in 2007, platforms like Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and eventually TikTok, made social media a part of everyday life across nearly all age groups. 

I do not believe that anything in history has influenced such rapid changes in culture, customs, even language than has the advent of social media. It has undoubtedly influenced and changed the mores of younger generations. The social norms, customs and 'unwritten rules' of the younger generations are so many and so varied, older generations are unaware of most (uninterested probably, as well). In recent times it has undoubtedly played an influential role of the outcome of a presidential election. Morals, on the other hand should not change from one generation to the next, provided that parents are doing their due diligence. Which we know isn't always the case. There is little doubt that moral decay is being insidiously advocated on social media platforms for those young, vulnerable ones in search of their own moral platform.. There have been countless crimes committed via the internet; financial, moral, including reputational damage, vile hoaxes, criminal, including extortion, fraud, the list is endless. And these are difficult, tedious, resource-heavy crimes to solve. Yet the image they inflict seems to be practically instantaneous. 

And now we are experiencing the technological tsunami that is AI. Google was cool. AI is revolutionary. Scholars can do extensive research in a fraction of the time bringing new discoveries and developments and literary works to our lives. The misguided amongst us can incubate evil ideas with clarity and speed. To be fair, every new technological development spawns both good and evil. For example, in 1836, Samual Colt patented the Colt Revolver, the first commercially successful handgun made in the US. Colt Revolvers are still made today, one-hundred eighty nine years later. They still allow law enforcement officers to do their jobs. They still allow the armed forces to defend our country. Regrettably, they also abet bank robbers, thieves and burglars and murderers to ply their illicit trades. 

And so it shall be with social media, the internet and AI. At least until we can figure out an effective way to avert evil. Considering since the days when Jesus walked the earth, evil has been present and prevailed all too often, it would not be reasonable to expect a timely resolution. Unfortunately and regrettably it is a part of the human condition. There will always be misdeeds and miscreants, not to mention ordinary troublemakers. But the thinkers, the innovators, the inventors, the developers will always far outnumber them. As fast as these elite groups can come up with groundbreaking ideas, the troublemakers will always follow. For all the great wonderful things the internet and social media has brought, always keep in mind there are those lurking in the cyber shadows waiting for an opportunity to wreak havoc. It's what they do. Deny them their opportunity. 

California: Gorgeous coastline, fabulous climate, lots of nice people and the dumbest politicians on earth.

 California seems to be experiencing an 'energy crisis'. Gas prices are expected to exceed $8 per gallon in 2026. That's similar to Europe, who have been experiencing extremely high fuel prices for decades. But there's an entirely different 'cause and effect' in play causing California's gas price spike. Seems California has regulated itself into unaffordable energy. In spite of abundant energy resources and refining capacity, California has created a regulatory climate that has convinced  two major oil companies to close their refineries in the coming year. 

Valero's Benicia refinery near San Francisco and Phillips 66's Wilmington refinery near Los Angeles are both scheduled to close in 2026. Valero CEO Lane Riggs said on a recent earnings call that California's tough "regulatory enforcement environment" was the main factor driving the closing of the state's sixth largest refinery. The announcement came six months after state regulators fined the company $82 million for exceeding toxic emissions standards for more than 15 years. 

Phillips 66 announce the closure of its Los Angeles refinery, the seventh largest in the state, just 3 days after California passed ABX2-1, which requires refiners in the state to hold additional inventories of gasoline stock. The company attributed the closure to not any specific policy but to "long-term uncertainty' for the refining business in the state. This is the sixth and seventh largest refiners in the state. Would a reasonable person be inclined to think that conditions would be any better for the five larger refineries?...

Last year Chevron moved its headquarters out of San Ramon, California to Houston, Texas, because it was becoming increasingly difficult to do business in the Golden State. According to a professor at USC, California has legislated itself into a situation where costs are extraordinarily high and the political environment is extraordinarily harsh. The two refineries represent almost 20% of in-state gasoline production, about 6.2 million gallons of gas per day.  At present, California gas prices are about 40% higher than the US average, a difference attributable to 'supply issues', the CA 'special blend' of gasoline (sold only in CA), and a layer of taxes and fees paid by consumers. 

California Governor Newscum blames the oil companies for gouging consumers for decades. According to him, "There's no other way to put it." Well, Gav, if you told the truth, there would indeed be another way to put it...  California with the help of Obama and Biden have been pushing to make California (and the country for that matter) an all-EV affair. Newsome's objective was to eliminate internal combustion engine vehicle sales by 2035. That mandate set the stage for energy companies and refiners to set up an exit strategy. His timing is a little off, the refiners seem to be leaving about a decade too early. 

California at one time was fourth in the world in oil production. Today, it produces about 2.5% of all US crude production, and only about 24% of its own in-state needs. That has left CA highly dependent on foreign imports including Iraq, Brazil, Guayana, and Ecuador. In 2024, CA imported 61% of its oil from foreign sources. 

With the looming closure of the two refineries, the situation stands to get worse. California has no inbound pipelines for incoming gasoline or oil, leaving them completely dependent on foreign sources to make up the difference. All arriving gas and oil imports will be via maritime vessels, known for being some of the most egregious producers of greenhouse gas emissions. 

California doesn't only have a lack of competent leadership, they have a leadership vacuum. If the Richter scale could measure stupidity, this earthquake would be historic.

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.