An Open Letter to Attorney General Sessions

Honorable Jeff Sessions,

We loved you as the affable and candid Senator from Alabama. 

But times, places, jobs, and responsibilities have changed for all of us.  Mostly for the good–but not entirely.  It is apparent, however, that the DOJ and the FBI are still firmly mired in the Obama years and continue to be guided by Obama’s policies.  And it is clearly your job, as Attorney General, to rectify that situation.  Both the DOJ and the FBI have been politicized (“weaponized” is the contemporary jargon) to aid and assist the progressive Democrat objectives and to obstruct and delay conservative Republican objectives.    

We believe it was a huge mistake on your part to recuse yourself from participation in the so called Russian collusion investigation.  We understand that you were concerned about a possible “appearance of impropriety”–but, frankly, there is simply no way that any unbiased person could reasonably conclude that casual contact with the Russian ambassador, whether as a Senator or as a cheerleader for the Trump campaign, had any bearing on the alleged Russian collusion myth.  And after a year, there is still “not a scintilla of evidence” of Trump campaign collusion with Russia, or collusion with anyone else for that matter. 

Let’s take a look at the implications and consequences of your recusal.  Absent your recusal, the biased, partisan cabal of Mueller, Rosenstein, and Comey would not have been formed.  Absent your recusal, Special Counsel Mueller would not have been appointed, and the purely political Russian collusion “goose chase,” funded with millions of taxpayer dollars, would not have gone forward.  Surely no reasonable person could conclude that the Mueller prosecution is the result of a non-political FBI process.  Consider for a moment how things came to pass.  Comey leaked confidential FBI documents (a felony) on the ostensible grounds that such release would require the appointment of a Special Counsel with respect to the Russian “collusion” allegation.  But it does not follow that the unlawful leak by Comey necessitated the appointment of a Special Counsel.  People have paid lip service to the connection between the leak and the appointment (Rod Rosenstein says it was the leak that prompted him to appoint a Special Counsel), but, to our knowledge, no one has advanced any meaningful nexus between to two acts.  As a result of your voluntary recusal, Rod Rosenstein was able to appoint Mueller–coincidentally and conveniently a good friend of Comey–as Special Counsel. 

The appointment of Mueller could not conceivably have occurred without collusion against Trump by members of your FBI.  Surely these three conspirators (Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller) met or discussed their plan or plot.  Comey must have indicated that he would release documentation ostensibly necessitating the appointment of a Special Counsel (even though there is nothing inherent in the leak that cries out for the appointment of Special Counsel).  Rosenstein apparently bought into Comey’s bogus assertion that a Special Counsel appointment was somehow now justified or even  required.  And in spite of having a list of numerous possible appointees, Rosenstein just happened to appoint Mueller, a longtime friend of Comey.  Mueller quickly accepted the appointment in spite of numerous, apparent, and ever-growing conflicts of interest.   Then, as icing on the “get Trump” conspiratorial cake, Mueller rounded up a staff of known Hillary Clinton proponents and Trump haters.   

Mr. Attorney General.  Your ostensible desire to avoid any appearance of impropriety is overwhelmed by the actual impropriety, and clear bias, and ill will of the Comey, Rosenstein, Mueller triumvirate.  In short, your recusal has resulted in the obvious and continuous politicization of the FBI.  Your actions have, at least inadvertently, resulted in corruption within, and abuse of power by, the FBI–perhaps the most important of the agencies over which you now have theoretical control.   We believe that termination of this unwarranted, corrupt, improper, witch hunt is essential to begin the restoration of the damaged reputation of the FBI.  Frankly, we had quite enough of this sort of lawless and political corruption of the DOJ and the FBI during the Obama administration.

 So what is to be done at this point?  Citing the corrupt nature of the current Special Counsel investigation, and the obvious damage it is doing to the FBI, you could “unrecuse” yourself and take whatever action is necessary to end the Russian collusion farce.  Or you could simply replace Rosenstein, who has shown himself to be nothing more than a pro-Clinton, anti-Trump, political hack.  Rosenstein’s replacement could call off the Special Counsel investigation, replace Mueller with an unbiased individual who is not a personal friend of James Comey (the principal culprit in the whole Clinton email debacle as well as the bogus Russian collusion fiasco), or appoint a new Special Counsel to investigate the obvious corruption and bias of the Mueller investigation. 

 Taking no action under the present circumstances is simply not an acceptable option– given the damage that is being done to the FBI and the DOJ and the distraction the investigation poses to the Trump administration’ agenda. 

And, speaking of institutional damage, why is there nothing in the works to investigate the numerous “real” improper acts of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation during the campaign, and more importantly, during her tenure as Secretary of State?  Some have said that we should simply let bygones be bygones regarding Hillary.  Hasn’t her defeat in 2016 been punishment enough?  The short answer is “no.”  It’s not just that Hillary needs to be taught a lesson.  It’s more important than that.  It is clear to most right-thinking Americans that there are two standards of justice in the country–one for elites like Hillary and another for the remainder of hard-working, honest Americans.  Something must be done to rectify that legitimate perception.  

Michael Flynn may go to jail for misleading the FBI about a perfectly legal matter.  Why does this seem to happen only to conservative Republicans (think Scooter Libby)? 

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is not being investigated, although she: 

            1.  Put classified material at risk by negligently and knowingly using a personal server (a crime whether you call it “gross negligence” or “extreme carelessness);

            2.  Lied to the Congress and the FBI–and the American public–about her personal server, the existence of classified material on that server, the number of wireless devices connected to the server, the fact that she turned over all State Department related documents and emails to the State Department, and the fact that she only destroyed personal email (yoga, wedding and Bill-related emails);

            3.  Lied to Congress–the American public and Gold Star parents–about the cause and nature of the Benghazi consulate attack;

            4.  Accepted a bribe of approximately $145 million (paid to the Clinton Foundation) in exchange for her approval of the sale of 20% of the United States’ uranium resources to a Russian-owned entity; and

            5.  Accepted contributions to the Clinton Foundation from a number of foreign governments (including many who are guilty of human rights violations and abusive treatment of women) in exchange for favorable access to her as the Secretary of State (and presumptive next President of the United States).  

For these illegal and/or unethical acts, Hillary has been indicted for nothing, was not seriously considered for indictment by any governmental authority, and, essentially, received no punishment or meaningful condemnation.  But thank goodness we were able to nail that deceitful Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI about a matter of no consequence. 

And so, Mr. Attorney General, we think that, based upon the side-by-side comparison Trump acts and Hillary acts set forth above, the scales of justice within the Department of Justice, and its subsidiary entities like the FBI, are badly askew. 

James Comey has single-handedly destroyed the faith of the American public in the FBI.  Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch have seriously undermined the confidence of the American public in the Department of Justice generally (not to mention the biased, irresponsible, deep state DOJ underlings who seem to be popping up daily).   

President Trump has handed you the challenge of restoring the faith of the people in the DOJ and FBI as pinnacles of the American justice system.  And, frankly, it will not do at all for you to simply take a pass on the grounds that all past and present DOJ problems will be addressed and resolved by Special Counsel, Robert Mueller–a former head of the FBI, a man who is friendly with the despoilers of the DOJ, and whose singular mission appears to be to politically hinder, or politically wound, your boss, the President of the United States. 


An Uneasy Case for the Filibuster Rule



As most of you students of Congressional history are aware, current Senate rules require a vote of 60 Senators to end debate on a particular piece of legislation and, thus, to allow that legislation to proceed to a vote on the Senate floor. In other words, even if the voters elect a majority of Senators of one party, that majority cannot accomplish anything unless that majority constitutes at least 60 Senators. Consequently, when the voters elected a Republican majority in the Senate, they had the temerity to think that the Senate would be able to approve some portion of the Republican Party agenda. How foolish is that?

While Americans believe that majority rules, the majority which you elected to the Senate believes that the elected majority cannot be trusted–that it can only act if a significant percentage of members of the opposing party are willing to go along with the majority’s proposal.

The GOP has consistently asserted that it could get nothing done in Washington with only a majority in the House. So we gave them a majority in the Senate. To which the Party responded, “you can’t reasonably expect us to get anything done without a Republican in the White House.” So we gave them a Republican in the White House. To which the GOP responded, “you can’t really expect us to get anything done because of the filibuster rule.” In other words, we gave them the House, we gave them the Senate, and we gave them the Presidency–but, unfortunately, we neglected to give them 60 Senate seats. Shame on the Republican voters for failing to understand how the Senate ties its own hands by adopting self-imposed rules of procedure.

The 60-vote filibuster rule is not found in the Constitution, or in any other governing document for that matter. The requirement that 60 votes are needed for cloture (a vote to end debate and to allow legislation to go to the full Senate for an up or down vote) is “a Senate rule.” A “rule!” In other words, the Senate has arbitrarily decided that it is incapable of acting based upon the will of the voters that elected its majority. By “rule” it requires the vote of up to 10 members of the opposition party to get anything done.

In effect, the Senate has approved a rule which makes it more difficult for it to act than the Constitution requires–a rule which makes it “more difficult” to carry out the will of the voters. Apparently the Senate believes that the American people are incapable of selecting a trustworthy Senate majority. Apparently the Senate does not understand its function in the overall governmental scheme of things. The Senate is designed to act as a check and balance to the House, which, by its more parochial nature, tends to represent primarily the more populous areas of the country. The Senate was not designed or intended to act as a check and balance to itself.

We sent a majority of Republicans to the Senate–so let them act like a majority. We did not ask them to tie both hands behind their backs so that a few Democrats can impede all legislative progress. We did not ask that a majority party surrender its majority status to the minority party. In fact one could reasonably argue that the filibuster rule is unconstitutional, or at least violates the one man, one vote concept, because it allows a minority to arbitrarily impede the will of the majority and otherwise dilutes the vote of any vote cast for any Senator.

So, here’s a quick fix for consideration by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Use your Senate majority to rescind the filibuster rule. Permit the voters’ selection of Republican Party Senators to mean something. Don’t senselessly cede the will of the majority of Republican voters to the opposition party.

We don’t believe that the filibuster rule serves any purpose other than to slow down the implementation of legislative action demanded by the American people. If Republican leadership (the term rapidly becoming an oxymoron) believes that the filibuster rule serves some redeeming legislative purpose (other than to prevent the Senate from acting it the best interests of the American people), now is the time for such leadership to articulate and defend its reasoning. We understand that a change in the Senate rules would benefit Democrats when they have a majority in the Senate. So what? That consequence does not alter the legitimate political construct that the winner of a political contest should have more say than the loser.

If Republican leadership continues to oppose elimination of the filibuster rule, it is time for you to stop claiming that you are unable to advance your constituents’ agenda simply because of the filibuster rule. The filibuster rule is, at best, a self-inflicted wound. The American voters are on to the Senate’s game–they understand that the filibuster rule is designed solely to prevent Senators from having to vote on controversial issues, or alternatively, to allow cast meaningless votes for matters they know will never be adopted by the full Senate. In other words, the purpose of the filibuster rule is to allow Senators to spend most of their time campaigning and to give them room to duck and cover when communicating with their constituents. The American voters don’t give a fig about self-constructed and self-imposed Senate rules. What American voters want is for the Senate to carry out their will–even if it requires the Senate to tweak some feckless and arbitrary Senate rule.

Politicians refer to elimination of the filibuster rule as “the nuclear option.” And from their perspective, it probably is “nuclear.” From their constituents’ perspective, however, it is simply representative democracy.

We are confident that the Republican establishment liked the world of politics better before social media allowed the average American to understand the arcane rules of the Senate. But time moves on even though the Senate apparently does not. Toto has pulled back the curtain revealing that each Senator is nothing more than the “wonderful and all-powerful” Wizard of Oz.


© 2017





 We know how you must feel.  The earth has shifted under your political feet.  The solid political principles that have guided your lives are in flux.  You are desperate to find a path to political safety in an uncertain populist environment.  Unfortunately, you are ill-equipped to deal with what is happening in America and your traditional instincts are leading you down the wrong path. 

 You have apparently decided that President Trump is an aberration.  Like campaign finance laws and earmark restrictions, this too shall pass.  But you ignore the populist movement at your own peril.  The voters’ being upset with the GOP status quo is not a passing fancy.  Ignoring the will of your constituents is not a formula for success.  You will not remain relevant to this country and its government so long as you continue to believe that the power you have accumulated is more important than the will of the people who granted you that power.

 How can you reconcile that, while the same people who put you in power want you to support the agenda of President Trump, you seem to believe that your solemn duty is to join the Democrats in obstructing Trump’s populist agenda? 

 What part of your promise to “repeal” Obamacare do you not understand?  Do you think we understood your promise to “repeal” Obamacare meant “tweak and improve”?  Or “prop up failing Obamacare”?  Or “fix the Obamanation constructed exclusively by the Democrats”?  Or “save Obamacare” so that the legacy of America’s worst President will be forever hailed as the progenitor of America’s new socialized medicine?  Do you think that we put you in Congress to salvage Obama’s takeover of America’s health care system?  Do you think we elected you to “Make Obamacare Great Again” or to “Make American Health Care Great Again”?  This is supposed to be a rhetorical question, but we are guessing that such a notion went well over your political noggins. 

 The usual suspects turn up as being RINO—pettifogging the public into believing that they are Republicans when in fact they are nothing more than Democrat wolves in Republican sheep’s clothing.  To avoid any ambiguity, let’s list the so-called Republican Senators who are standing in the way or the Trump agenda and who need to be subject to primary challenge and replaced.  If these people continue to be appropriate soldiers under the Republican banner, then the banner needs to be torn down.  To list only the most obvious (and not including the failed GOP Congressional leadership)—Rob Portman, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Jeff Flake, Ben Sasse, Lisa Murkowski, Thom Tillis and Susan Collins.  These Senators have no kinship with the Republican Party, no interest in their constituents, and no interest in making America great again.  Their only interest is in political self-preservation or self-aggrandizement.  The sooner they can be extirpated from the GOP the better.

 Please do not misunderstand the clear message that we are attempting to communicate to the GOP.  Your survival is dependent on your grasp of this concept.  Do what the American people are demanding that you do.  Stop putting interest groups’ interests in front of the interests of your constituents. We are not at all confident that you possess the intellect or intuition to understand the precarious nature of your position.   You are on the verge of becoming irrelevant—on the verge of being preplaced by the Tea Party.

 You are constantly asking for our political support.  Now it’s turn for us to ask—Will you do what you have promised, or forever desert your supporters?

 © 2017 


Because this is our first posting since the Presidential election, we want to take this opportunity to congratulated Donald Trump on his well-run and successful populist campaign. We are also inclined to extend congratulations to the GOP as well–though it seems likely that the GOP success occurred in spite of, rather than because of, many members of the GOP Establishment.

We are also pleased to suggest that many of the concepts that led to Trump’s success are covered extensively in our companion book–“Honey I Shrunk the Government (Tough Love for the GOP).”

Anticipating the Trump Presidency has been extremely satisfying. However, we cannot deny that it was equally gratifying to watch the Clinton Machine grind to a staggering and unexpected stop– to the obvious and enjoyable disbelief of the media, the pollsters, DNC folks, and a fair number of anti-Trump GOP Establishment types.  Apparently, this time around, a plurality of American voters decided  not to be taken in again by the Democrats “big lie”–“We’re going to make the lives of the poor and middle class better–just like we always have.”

The notion of “draining the swamp” in D.C. is compelling because it hints of eliminating much of what we perceive to be wrong with our federal government. We are confident that President Trump will preside over a thorough cleansing of the unbridled corruption and cronyism that has been pervasive in Washington and which has done much to destroy confidence in the federal political system over the past two and a half decades.

But cleaning up D.C. is only a start. While corruption, arrogance, lies, deception, and fecklessness are systemic within the federal government, they are arguably symptomatic rather than causal.  The root cause of the disaster that has become the abusive seat of power in Washington can be found throughout contemporary life in America.  In other words–there is more than one swamp which must be drained.

The next reclamation project which needs to be undertaken involves fixing the badly-broken media. There can be little question that the media is strongly biased, at all levels, in favor of the Democratic Party and its candidates.  There is also little doubt that many completely incompetent Democrats have been propelled into office with the swift wind of media bias at their backs.  And perhaps, more importantly, who among us can contest the fact that the GOP and the RNC and their affiliates have spent billions of dollars endeavoring to counter the deleterious effects of liberal, media bias during each election cycle?

The media has essentially abandoned its Fourth Estate function of being the watchdog of the people.  Instead it has become the lapdog of the Democratic National Committee.

As we have frequently suggested, for half the money the GOP normally spends trying to neutralize the liberal media, the GOP could acquire, control, and convert the media to its own political persuasion (a matter also covered in great detail in Honey I Shrunk the Government).   When confronted with the argument that acquisition and control of media outlets by the GOP would violate First Amendment freedom of speech, one needs to simply note that that is exactly what the Democratic Party has done over many decades.

When the liberal media swamp has been thoroughly drained, attention should then be turned to cleaning up the primordial swamp of academia. Ah academia–the cultural institution that is supposed to educate and enlighten our best and brightest.  Unfortunately, our institutions of higher learning no longer enlighten–they offer only politically-correct pabulum, liberal orthodoxy, and unbelievable bias.  Who would have thought that these once bastions of free speech could sink so low as to penalize and excoriate any student having the audacity to articulate a conservative thought or concept?  Who would have ever thought that nebulous notions of political incorrectness, hate speech, safe spaces, and “micro-aggressions” would inveigh students for taking any conservative position on campus (or off campus) which might conflict with any liberal or progressive doctrine?  It appears that “micro-aggression” can be easily defined as being any writing or statement which contravenes any writing or statement containing a liberal or progressive thought or principle.  Leaving for another day discussion of the implications of our colleges and universities creating an entire generation of dysfunctional pantywaists, it is safe to conclude, overall, that we have transitioned from “Institutions of Higher Learning” to “Institutions of Liberal Propaganda.”

The academic swamp may prove to be the most difficult to drain, because the only folks who have any real leverage over these educational institutions are their ultra-rich donors. Unfortunately, as we all know, once folks become extremely wealthy, they tend to take contra-indicative postures by becoming ultra-liberal, eschewing capitalism, and declaiming all things conservative.  Because of the election of Donald Trump, there is some hope that the threat of withholding federal funds might convince colleges and universities that freedom of speech needs to be a two-way street.

After a little practice draining the Washington swamp, and then the media swamp, perhaps The Donald will have gained enough experience to tackle the more challenging academic swamp.

To the millions of real Americans who had the temerity and the perspicacity to vote for Donald Trump, congratulations and best wishes for an exciting 2017. Now let’s get out there and drain some swamps in order to, well, “Make America Great Again.”

© 2016








IF you want to know what it was like to live during the Great Depression–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you want to know what national bankruptcy looks like–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you think you’ll enjoy watching the Supreme Court trample the Constitution–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you think an attack on the United States by China would be fun–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you think a weakened military would be helpful in fending off an attack by China–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you think that the Second Amendment means that only the Government should have weapons–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you want more jobs and potential tax revenues shipped abroad–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you think our economy should be hamstrung by even more ridiculous regulations–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you think the country needs to take in more unvetted Syrian jihadists–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you think our country should move toward Sharia Law, with its accompanying denigration of women–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you like having your freedom of speech squelched by ridiculous assertion of political correctness–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you believe that our public schools should be protected from competition so that they can continue to deteriorate–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you believe the country should be divided on the basis of race, age, religion, and income solely for political purposes–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you believe that open, unsecured borders make the country more secure and helps stem the flow of illegal aliens and drugs–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you think that Obamacare is one whale of a good entitlement program–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you think it’s a good idea to put the police in jail so that thugs, looters, and anarchists will have more freedom to roam our streets–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you want the USA to be considered a laughing stock by the rest of the world–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you want to continue to turn our friends into enemies and our enemies into allies–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you think advancing to nuclear weapons objectives of the crazy Mullahs in Iran will reduce global unrest–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you think that liberal bias in the media and in academia is good for the country–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you think that more restrictions on the ability of banks to extend credit and fewer restrictions on greedy Wall Street con artists are good ideas–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you are willing to tolerate even more corruption in the IRS, the Department of Justice and other unchecked federal agencies–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you like being treated as a victim, living in high crime areas, and being completely dependent on the federal government–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you think that politicians should use private foundations to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you think the President of the United States should be oblivious to the impact of classified documents on national security–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you think we should elect a President who thinks the majority of the American people are deplorable, irredeemable, racists, rogue law enforcement officers, Islamaphobes, and religious bigots–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you believe that we should be governed by politicians who believe that the will of the voters is of no consequence–VOTE FOR CLINTON

IF you are unable to comprehend the implications of this message–YOU HAVE PROBABLY ALREADY VOTED FOR CLINTON




Now they are reaping the Whirlwind. The unbelievable shock of the GOP Establishment that there is voter pushback against their empty promises and feckless policies. “If we just had the House.” “If we just had the Senate.” “ If we just had the Presidency.” Time after time they have ignored the clear will of the people. Such hubris. Such arrogance. They can’t believe that GOP voters have finally had enough. But the voters are hellbent on taking their country back from career political hacks, from lobbyists, from Wall Street greed, from special interest groups, and from those anarchists who are committed to spreading chaos by allowing religious liberties to be trampled on, by disregarding immigration laws, by disregarding racially-motivated riots, by disregarding sanctuary cities, by ignoring or making excuses for radical Islam–all with a view to fundamentally changing the nature of our county and our culture.

Many of the Establishment folks have even taken to trying to undermine the candidacy of Trump–calling him unfit, unqualified, dangerous, lacking Presidential temperament, or at least, failing to whole-heartedly endorse him if they endorse him at all. It is obvious that most of these GOP traitors (some of whom are actually violating the pre-primary pledge they took to support the ultimate GOP nominee) are under the misapprehension that all they need to do is suffer through 4 years of Hillary until 2020 when they believe they will be able to run and support a more conventional, ultra-conservative, bought-and-paid-for candidate. Then they can go back to the rigged, crony, feckless governmental activity that has been so beneficial for them and so awful for the rest of us.

It is one thing to cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face–it is quite another thing to cut off one’s head to spite one’s body. Yet that is exactly what our conscience-stricken GOP turncoats are doing.

Here’s what they clearly do not understand. If Donald Trump does not win the Presidential election in 2016, the Republican Party will be effectively dead. Do they really think that millions and millions of Trump supporters and voters are going to take the Establishment’s rebuff of GOP primary results lying down? We think we know where they are going to go: Directly to a nationally unified and organized Tea Party. Not the sporadic, crop-up organization that you know today as the Tea Party–but rather one that will either swamp and supplant the GOP entirely or, at a minimum, take so many votes away from traditional, Establishment-types that the GOP will be lucky to win an occasional county dog-catcher’s race.

The false hope that these arrogant, know-it-all Republican Trump defectors are relying on is the notion that they can still manage to win enough down-ballot races to hang onto the Senate and the House. The only way that these misguided folks can reasonably expect to hold onto anything is if Donald Trump sweeps to victory (or the race is very competitive regardless who ultimately wins). Do they really think that, if Trump is getting clobbered, quite possibly as a direct result of the defections and/or outright attacks by these same Establishment gurus, Trump supporters are going to rush to the polls to vote for some down-ballot Senatorial or Congressional candidate? And to be perfectly blunt about it, unless Trump wins the White House, it really doesn’t matter to most Republican voters whether the GOP holds the Senate or the House. Why should they care? After all, the GOP has held the House since 2010 and the Senate since 2014, and what have the Party faithful got to show for it–bupkis. The Republicans in the Senate, and to a slightly lesser extent in the House, have done absolutely nothing to halt Obama’s assaults on the Constitution, or do anything other than appease their Democrat colleagues. In other words, while we thought we were electing Republicans, we have, effectively simply gotten more Democrats.

Additionally, if Hillary wins the White House and has the likely opportunity to pack the Supreme Court with more Progressive activists, it really won’t matter what majorities the Republicans might hold going forward.

So, in other words, the active Republican opponents of Trump are pursuing the only course that will ensure loss of the White House, loss of majorities in both the Senate and the House, politicizing of the Supreme Court for decades, and the probable, permanent destruction of the Republican Party. You’ve got to hand it to them–they are willing to unabashedly convey the message that they plainly are putting personal aggrandizement ahead of the well-being of the country. Let’s all give them a standing ovation for their candor.

© 2016



The battle has been won. Donald Trump has run roughshod over a field of 16 mostly-Establishment GOP primary opponents. Thanks to the wisdom of primary voters, the Party has been spared another same-ole, same-ole general election run by an ultra-conservative, destined-to-lose, candidate.

So it’s time to rally round the Trump flag. Everyone can now see that there are only two remaining general election options–Donald or Hillary. We know beyond a reasonable doubt that even 4 years of a Hillary Presidency would mean: (1) continuation of Obama’s failed, left-wing, un-Constitutional, and spendthrift policies, (2) continuation of the tax and spend practice that has left us on the precipice of national bankruptcy (we believe that four more year of profligacy would likely put the country beyond economic recovery), (3) continued decline of the economy with further loss of jobs and loss of American manufacturing businesses to low-wage countries, (4) billions of dollars squandered attempting to solve the Quixotic problem of global warming (if God wanted us to eliminate the accumulation of greenhouse gases, he would not have allowed us to invent the combustion engine–but, of course, the Democrats would have to believe in God to understand the wisdom of this position), (5) taxing the wealth and job creators until they are no longer incented to do their entrepreneurial thing (at least not in this country), (6) evisceration of the Second Amendment, (7) up to four new, ultra-liberal Justices appointed to the Supreme Court (an event the country would not likely recover from in this century), (8) constant, shrill, pontificating speeches about income inequality from the bully pulpit (this prospect alone should be enough to cause sensible people to vote for Trump, or at least against Hillary), (9) further diminution of the military to the point where we will be at serious risk of being attacked on the homeland, (10) further loss of respect around the globe (thanks to the naïve and immature policies of the Obama administration, most of the world already thinks we have abdicated any role on the world stage), and (11) the rise of ISIS and constant, brazen, terrorist attacks from both within and without the country. And readers, the foregoing is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the negative consequences of a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

And on the Trump side of the election ledger? Well we don’t really know all that much about him because he has not squandered his entire life “in the public service of the country” (that’s a compliment by the way)–but he appears to be a confident leader who understands the peril the country is in and possesses the business acumen to do something about it.

And so, with the scales of national destruction weighted so heavily in Hillary’s favor, and with the only other choice being Trump, how do our erstwhile Republican, Establishment leaders set about to advance the cause? They take every opportunity to bash Trump, call him unpleasant things, demand that he come to Republican leaders in Congress on bended knee to beg for support, withhold endorsements, and attempt to goad him into revising his message and its delivery in a way that is entirely inconsistent with the successful approach he used to blow away the Establishment’s toady primary candidates.

Are these Establishment folks stark raving mad? If they are not mad, the remaining conclusion can only be that the GOP Establishment is so contemptuous of GOP voters, so anxious to prove the voters wrong for supporting Trump, and so looking forward to being able to say “we told you so,” that they would prefer to accelerate the destruction of the country rather than support a candidate who does not fit the stereotypical mold of a GOP Presidential candidate (like Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney for instance). The Establishment would apparently prefer a nominee who would mindlessly go along with the program they believe is necessary to protect its sinecure.

Think of all of the times the GOP Establishment has asked voters to go along with its Presidential nominee preference. But now, when the voters ask the Establishment to go along with their choice, the Establishment treats the voters like miscreant children, or like people who simply cannot understand the complex working of politics at a high level, who are incapable of thinking for themselves, who are insufficiently attuned to the needs and wants of the other side of the aisle.   In reality, however, these are simply GOP voters who have refused to drink the Establishment Kool-Aid.

But enough about concepts of political loyalty (apparently an oxymoron). Let’s name some names and call out some Establishment types.

Let’s start with John Kasich: a good man, a competent man, an able administrator, who stayed in the primary race almost as long as Bernie Sanders for no apparent reason other than to castigate Trump at every opportunity. Kasich signed the pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee, just like every other GOP primary candidate. Apparently we were to take that pledge to mean–every potential nominee except Trump. Kasich has said that he is not sure that he and Trump share the same values, does not approve of Trump’s “demeanor,” doesn’t agree with many of Trump’s positions, and believes that Trump is “trending down”–in other words, Trump is not at all like John Kasich. Well, Duh. If Trump were more like Kasich, he probably would not be the Party’s nominee. In light of Kasich’s strident anti-Trump rhetoric, it would have been a fair comeuppance if Trump had insisted on moving the GOP National Convention from Cleveland to New Jersey.

And what about Paul Ryan? Ryan has repeatedly suggested that Trump needs to “earn” his endorsement by demonstrating that Trump is prepared to truly unite the Republican Party. As though Trump was the sole cause of division within the Party, and that the cause of Party division has nothing to do with the inaction and ineptitude of the Republican majority in Congress.   What chutzpah for Ryan to summon the man, who just received more votes than any candidate in GOP primary in history, before the Establishment to prove that Trump, and Trump alone, is able to resolve all of the Party’s differences. In other words, Ryan wants Trump’s commitment to join the “Good Ole Boys” club in D.C. Why Ryan would think it is Trump’s obligation to “mend” the Party, when it has largely been the members of the Establishment sowing the seeds of Party discord, is anyone’s guess.   Political civility (perhaps another oxymoron) would suggest that members of the Establishment should be congratulating Trump and offering their support and cooperation.

And then there was the allegation of racism, coming not from Hillary or Elizabeth Warren, but rather from Mitch McConnell (and even Newt Gingrich) over Trump’s statements regarding the New Mexico federal judge presiding over the Trump University fraud case. With friends like Mitch, who needs enemies? And Mitch is just dead wrong with regard to his interpretation of Trump’s statements. We need to get over the notion that alluding to someone else’s ethnicity, that allusion, per force, constitutes racism.   When Donald Trump drew an inference that a federal judge of Mexican heritage might not view Trump favorably or fairly, consciously or subconsciously, because Trump wants to wall off Mexico from the United States, it was hardly racist to raise such a logical inference. Trump was not calling the judge a racist, even though the defendant in the case is white, but rather is merely suggesting that, under the particular circumstances, the judge may have an “appearance of impropriety” problem. If Trump weren’t running for President, and hadn’t announced plans to wall off our border with Mexico, and had stated that he was not being judged impartially because persons of Mexican heritage are incapable of judging white people fairly–now that would be racist.

So why did Mitch go out of the way to declare Donald to be a racist, even in the face of reasonable inferences to the contrary? We don’t know. You will have to ask him. Perhaps, like Kasich and Ryan, McConnell is simply out of his freaking mind. These three individuals all know that a Hillary Presidency would be a long-term disaster for the country, and they all know that Trump offers the only possibility of defeating Shrill Hill, and yet they go out of their way to bash or impugn Trump. Madness.

There are lots of Republicans in this year’s political drama that need to mend their ways – but Trump isn’t one of them.

All Republicans should get solidly behind Trump and help him win the in November. If they can’t do that, and do it quickly, then they are part of the problem and, at least, need to quietly get out of the way.

© 2016



As clandestine meetings go, this one turned out to be not so clandestine.

As everyone except perhaps California surfers now knows, former President Clinton’s private plane and Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s private plane almost experienced a mid-ground collision on the tarmac at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor airport a few days ago.

The AG had a speaking engagement in Phoenix, so her presence at the airport was understandable.

Bill Clinton’s presence at the airport seems a bit more coincidental. The Clinton spokespersons would have us believe that Bill was just flying around the country for lack of anything better to do, when his pilot spotted the beautiful Valley of the Sun and decided to drop in at Sky Harbor as a break from spending so much time flying nowhere.

Once on the ground Bill apparently learned that Loretta Lynch was “coincidentally” headed his way for a Phoenix speaking engagement (or whatever). Having nothing better to do than flying aimlessly around the country, he decided to wait on the tarmac until the AG’s plane landed. Being the gregarious sort, he determined that he would pay a little surprise visit on Mrs. Lynch as soon as she landed and her plane was parked. It is unclear whether Mrs. Lynch’s plane coincidentally parked close enough to the former President’s plane so that he would be able accomplish his social visit on foot, or whether the former President’s plane was required to stalk the AG’s plane in order to effectuate the rendezvous.

We also know that President Clinton met alone with Loretta and her husband–no press, no staff, and no security personnel. The next logical questions are “how” and “why”? Either the meeting was pre-arranged among the principals, or he had to communicate through his security folks in order to make sure they understood the rules. One can only imagine the nature of that conversation:

“Mr. Secret Service guy, would you hustle over to talk to the Attorney General’s plane, before she deplanes, to let her know that I, former President and august personage, would like to honor her with a brief social call. Let her know that this coincidental, unscheduled, and completely unplanned meeting is most fortuitous, since I would like to have a chat with her about golf, our travels, and  grandchildren.  Oh yes, and make sure that she understands that the meeting must be completely private. We wouldn’t want the press to glean any information about our golf scores, where we have been, or our grandchildren’s potty training, you know.”

We then presume that an acquiesce by Mrs. Lynch arrived in timely fashion, and the former President, accompanied by his security detail, ambled across the tarmac to the conveniently close Lynch plane, parted company with his security detail, and climbed the stairs into the sanctuary of Mrs. Lynch’s plane. We do not know whether Mrs. Lynch’s pilot and co-pilot were hustled off the plane or were simply sequestered in the cockpit.

So we have a pretty good idea how the details of this chance meeting unfolded–but what about the “why” aspect of the encounter?

We know that both the former President and Mrs. Lynch had in mind that their meeting would go undetected. Neither one left the meeting declaiming–“Wow, what a coincidence, I just unexpectedly ran into former President Clinton!” or “Wow, I just unexpectedly ran into Attorney General Lynch.” In point of fact, we would likely still not know about this “chance” meeting if a local Phoenix TV anchor or reporter had not been tipped off that it was taking place.

Even if one could believe that this little tête-à-tête really occurred by chance, the demand for total secrecy leaves only the very, very naïve to believe that the conversation was limited to golf, travels, and grandchildren.

We will not be so crass as to suggest that the subject of the FBI’s ongoing criminal investigation of Hillary, Bill, and their relationship (and the government’s relationship) to the Clinton Foundation actually came up during the half hour or so meet and greet. Nor was it necessary that Bill raise the subject of the investigation in order to get his point across.

Our surmise is that Bill told Loretta that she was Hillary’s first choice to fill the vacancy left on the Supreme Court by the untimely demise of Justice Scalia. Then he turned the conversation to golf, travel, and grandchildren–so, at least, they wouldn’t have to lie about that.

Pretty clever actually. Without ever mentioning the FBI or its investigation, Bill communicates that if Hillary is actually indicted, she will lose the election, and if she loses the election, Loretta’s prospect of being appointed to the Supreme Court goes up in smoke as well. Anyone but a politician would consider this sort of conduct to be a form of bribery.

The most amazing thing about this fabrication by a high ranking former public official and a current public official, is that, even when confronted with its implausibility, Democrat spokespersons and the Main Stream Media have tumbled to this fairy tale with the gusto of the Brothers Grimm.

Who of sane mind (or any mind at all for that matter) could seriously believe that Clinton’s plane and Lynch’s plane just happened to be in the same place at the same time; or that complete secrecy was necessary for a casual conversation about grandchildren. Please. We know that the principals perpetrating “Plane Gate” are corrupt, but it never ceases to amaze that the media types are so willing to look like ignorant boobs in order to try to conceal the obvious. But then no one ever claimed that Democrats and their support group were lacking in gullibility.

© 2016


Founding Fathers

This will be short and sweet because it is both simple and urgent. We have 140 days, give or take, to put matters right, or matters may never be right again.

We all know about the Founding Fathers, those great men from centuries gone by who created the wonderful Constitutional Republic that has become a superpower, a global force for good, the creator of a protracted era of global peace (the “Pax Americana”), and, without question, the greatest, most-benevolent, and generous nation the world has ever known.

The Founding Fathers were legitimately concerned about the prospect of “Unfounded Fathers” (though they didn’t call them that), who, in spite of all of the checks and balances built into our form of government by the Founding Fathers, would become so corrupt as to cause our democratic fabric to come unwoven. While the Founding Fathers were concerned, they had to believe that it was unlikely that their carefully crafted checks and balances would be rent asunder, because that result could only occur if the people voted into office representatives of incredible greed, ego, self-interest, narrow-mindedness, stupidity, and lack of regard for the will of the voters and the general well-being of the country.

Well friends, the day of reckoning, the day the Founding Fathers hoped would never come, is upon us. The “Unfounded Fathers” are among us, suffused in Beltway ignorance and arrogance, egomania and self-centeredness, greed and narrow-mindedness, incredible hubris, and disregard for the country and its citizens.

And we are not here to castigate Congressional Democrats, or even the Democrat-in-Chief in the White House–those folks have always exhibited the character and other failings set forth above. No, concerned citizens and conservatives, the “Unfounded Fathers” are here and bent on destruction generally of the nation’s political balance of power and destruction specifically of the Republican Party. It is with much angst and considerable sadness that we have been set upon by the enemy within–current members of the Republican Establishment. The very folks who are supposed to act as a check and balance against the callow, mindless policies of the unenlightened and maniacal Democrats, have thrown in the towel, have stabbed their constituents in the back, have gone over to the dark side, and are in the process of throwing this great country under the bus.

Shame on you Paul Ryan, shame on you Ben Sasse, shame on you Mitch McConnell, shame on you John McCain, shame on you Mitt Romney, shame on you George W. Bush. Shame on all of you phony Republicans who have decided that your “consciences,” your “elitist attitudes,” your “unbounded arrogance,” your alleged political “experience,” your ostensible political “judgment,” your previously lacking “canny insight,” your “distain for the judgment of your constituents,” and your “unbounded egos” entitle you to dismiss the will of the voters who have selected Donald Trump to be the Republican nominee for President.

We hate to rain on the GOP Establishment’s “pity parade,” but Unfounded Fathers, when it comes to honesty, candor, sincerity, loyalty, common sense, love of country, and desire to make America a better and safer place to live, you aren’t worthy of carrying the Donald’s gym bag.

Most startling is the fact that the Unfounded Fathers are not only incredibly ignorant, you are also incredibly wrong. It takes an arrogance of Obamaian proportions to tell your constituents that they are misguided idiots. More importantly, the Unfounded Fathers are apparently under the erroneous belief that they can ignore, demean, and oppose Donald Trump as the Party’s nominee while still saving their yellow, political skins by concentrating time, effort, and money in an attempt to keep “down-stream” Republican candidates from being “swept away” by a Hillary Clinton landslide. The Unfounded Fathers seem to have reached the illogical conclusion that they can bash the head of the GOP ticket and yet, somehow, help the GOP under-carders to carry the day. Unfortunately, these political geniuses have it exactly backwards.

If (thanks in large part to the unfounded opposition of the Unfounded Fathers) it appears as election day approaches that Trump has no chance of winning, millions and millions and millions of Trump supporters will stay home. Why should they make the effort to vote for a candidate that the Unfounded Fathers have beaten into the ground? And if the Unfounded Fathers think that the worst Republican turnout in history in a Presidential campaign is going to be good for their “down ballot” buddies, then they are even more foolish than we give them credit for. Perhaps these flighty Unfounded Fathers, who have shown little interest in supporting their constituents by challenging a political novice and lightweight like Obama, believe that, even though they have done everything in their power to drive away Trump supporters, those same voters will flock to the polls for the sole purpose of perking up the candidacies of beleaguered Republican Senatorial or Congressional candidates. Do they really expect the voters, whose candidate they have just willfully trampled, will come to the rescue of their favorite candidates?

Perhaps the Unfounded Fathers simply believe that the voters will have the common sense to want to preserve Republican majorities in the House and the Senate. But why should the voters respond to that self-interested appeal by the Unfounded Fathers? After all, the Republicans have had majorities in both the House and the Senate for 2 years, and have accomplished zero, zip, nada. Trump supporters are counting on Trump to shake up D.C., including the Republican majorities–to put an end to gridlock, ever-expanding bureaucracy and regulatory intrusion, petty bickering, and economic calamity. In other words: to mix things up a bit in the nation’s capitol. But, without Trump, there is no mix, no shake up, no change, and very little to hope for. Under such circumstances, do the Unfounded Fathers really think that, without Trump, the voters really give a fig whether the GOP retains its majority in either chamber?

Let us be perfectly blunt about this. The perilous path that you Unfounded Fathers are pursuing is guaranteed only to ensure 8 years of a Hillary Presidency, the loss of conservative influence on the Supreme Court for decades, the probable bankruptcy of the country, economic stagnation or recession for years to come, the Middle East in increasing flames and disorder, China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia unchecked on the world stage, further reduction in both size and readiness of the military, further fomentation of divisiveness on the basis of race, gender, age, religion, and socio-economic status, and vastly more attacks by Muslim extremists, both inside and outside of the United States. But not to worry, the Unfounded Fathers will still have reserved deck chairs on the USS Titanic.

But before the country goes under, or before anyone who can afford to leave the country does so, we will make sure that there is a huge monument erected to the Unfounded Fathers, prominently featuring all of their names and memorializing their destruction of the single greatest country in all of human kind–and for no reason other than the Unfounded Fathers’ petulance over the Republican primary voters having had the temerity (imagine the gall) to pick a Presidential nominee that the Unfounded Fathers would not have personally selected.   Election Day in 2016 will become the new day that “will live in infamy,” and the names of the Unfounded Fathers will forever be etched in the history books as the shortsighted individuals who singlehandedly destroyed the greatest and most successful political experiment of all time. And don’t forget that, after the destruction of the country, the loss of both the House and the Senate, and the ultimate consolidation of power to the Democrat Party, the lingering justification by the Unfounded Fathers will be an astonishing–“Well, at least our Presidential candidate lost.” Brilliant. Great political minds will be staggered for generations to come.

© 2016


HCK Blog 17 (Justice Antonin Scalia)-2

Rest in peace Mr. Justice. Your legacy as one of the truly great Supreme Court Justices is secure. More than any Justice within recent memory, you have embodied the legal spirit that we believe the drafters of the Constitution had in mind. You have interpreted the Constitution without endeavoring to expand or modify it. Your opinions have been insightful, imminently readable, fair, and consistent–whether as part of a majority or in dissent. And you have carried out your sworn duties with verve, wit, and humor.

We suggest to our readers that they take the time to read some of your recent opinions if they want to understand how a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States should comport himself or herself.

It is however a sad commentary on the state of political life in America today that, before you even had an opportunity to lay in state, the matter of your successor became a political football. President Obama was quick to assert that he intended to carry out his sworn Constitutional duty to nominate your successor. As an aside, it is interesting to observe how this President adheres to the Constitution when it suits his political narrative and blatantly disregards that document when it does not.

And so the President has set the table for the Republican majority in the Senate to, at last, demonstrate to their constituents why it was important to elect that majority. In spite of holding majorities in both the Senate and the House, Republicans have done little to justify the honor that the voting public has bestowed upon them–unless, of course, one believes that acquiescence to Presidential whims, or standing by while the President tramples upon the Constitution, are virtues. But perhaps this is the moment we have all been waiting for–that significant opportunity for the Senate majority to demonstrate that they are not simply Democrats light, that they are more than just appeasers, that they have at long last developed a backbone.

Let us begin by noting that allowing President Obama to have his third nominee appointed to the Supreme Court would be an unmitigated disaster. Who can seriously doubt that a President, who has politicized everything down to the White House china, would fail to politicize the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice who could, and likely would, implement his plan to radically transform America for decades to come?

And so we beseech you Senate majority–stand tall and firm with respect to this seminal event. The President has, once again, endeavored to convince the public that he occupies the moral high ground by promptly performing his Constitutional duty to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice–while, of course, implying that the failure of the Senate to immediately confirm his nominee would be an un-Constitutional response. The Senate majority must not let the President frame this debate. The Senate has “a Constitutional obligation” not to appoint a Presidential nominee who has even the remotest chance of sending the Court in a decades-long, leftward-leaning misdirection. And, by design, the Senate’s Constitutional obligation trumps the President’s obligation. So here is the challenge to the Senate majority–unless the President nominates Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, or Ted Cruz, there is no justifiable basis for the Senate to approve “any” Obama nominee. While we would take some satisfaction from having the Senate remind the President that “they won and he lost” or that “elections have consequences,” we will settle for the simple exercise of Constitutional defiance. We don’t really care whether the Senate exercises its Constitutional duty by means of a blanket statement that no Obama nominee will receive consent of the Senate, by advising the President that any nominee he puts forward will be unacceptable and that no hearing will be necessary, or by going through the exercise of holding a hearing before turning down the nominee (though, in fairness, any nominee who wants and receives a hearing should be advised in advance that the process will likely be a waste of his or her time, of the Senate’s time, and of taxpayer dollars).

The appointment of any Obama nominee will disrespect, and likely destroy, the decades of hard work judicial work by a singular Justice. And if the public good is insufficient incentive for the Senate majority to do the right thing, perhaps enlightened self-interest will do the trick. Cooperation with Obama on this important matter would be a deal-breaker for re-election of any Republican Senator.

To date, the center of the Republican majority seems to be holding firm–although the usual weak-kneed GOP Senators have attempted to straddle the fence by agreeing to meet with Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. We will see if the soft, squishy middle of the Republican Senate is willing to hold its ground. Kudos to Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, of whom we are frequent critics, for so far holding his ground regarding this critical Supreme Court decision.

© 2016