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



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




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


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





Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks during a campaign event in Chantilly, Virginia, on May 2, 2012. Romney said he was "pleased" by US President Barack Obama's visit to Afghanistan, after the election-year rivals had sparred over the commemoration of the killing of Osama bin Laden. AFP PHOTO/Jewel Samad (Photo credit should read JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/GettyImages)

In a stunning (only in the sense of its counter-productivity) event, Mitt Romney recently held a press conference for the sole purpose of disparaging the front-running candidate for his own Party’s 2016 Presidential nomination. You may remember Mitt. He was the GOP Establishment’s pick to go up against Barak Obama in the 2012 election. By 2008, the bloom was well off the Obama “Hope and Change” rose.   Apparently assuming that the election was in the bag, Mitt chose not to challenge Obama with respect to any of his many failed policies.   And so Mitt sat on his hands while the 2012 election slipped away. Instead of driving Republican voters to the polls, he drove them to stay home (in droves). Many remain of the opinion that Mitt lost the most easily winnable Presidential election within memory.

In spite of his stunning loss in 2012, Mitt nonetheless apparently believes that he is qualified to judge the qualifications of other GOP Presidential candidates.   He began his analysis by launching a broadside attack against Donald Trump (whose endorsement Mitt sought and received during Mitt’s lackluster campaign in 2012). By way of apparent gratitude, Mitt called the most popular candidate in the Republican primary process a “fraud,” “lacking Presidential timbre” and “unqualified” to occupy the White House who is, essentially, and deliberately “misleading” the American voters (particularly those gullible Republican primary voters).

Good grief. Has the Republican hierarchy lost its collective mind (an obvious rhetorical question)? The Establishment has abandoned Ron Reagan’s “Eleventh Commandment” (“Thou shall speak no ill of a fellow Republican”) in favor of some sort of political hate speech (“Thou shall criticize, insult, and demean any other Republican candidate who stands between you and the White House”). Do the leaders of our Party not realize that the natural consequence of this incessant bickering is to ensure that all of the candidates, including the ultimate nominee, will stumble out of the primary process mortally wounded for the general election? How do we justify destroying the character, credibility, and honesty of all of our candidates before the Democrats even lay a glove on them?

The reduced number of debates and shortened primary season (compared to 2012) were supposed to help prevent the candidates from cannibalizing each other. The actual impact of these modifications is that the candidates have felt it necessary to hurl even more invective at each other to compensate for this year’s compressed primary time frame. Instead of meaningful debate with an occasional gratuitous barb, the debate appearances of all of our candidates devolved into acts of slander, libel, invective, mistruth, outright lie, and character assassination–leaving little time for examination of important issues. Those who characterized the GOP debates as being the political equivalent of a WWE “cage match” were not far off the mark. How can the Party leadership allow this self-destruction to occur, let alone continue for the entire primary season?

One of the original objectives of Honey I Shrunk the Government was to offer constructive advice to the GOP. But the Party may well be beyond mere constructive criticism. If the Party will not, or cannot, control the tenor of its candidates’ rhetoric, then the Party will surely self-destruct. Corruption, greed, self-interest, and apathy appear to be so ingrained in the current GOP Establishment that there may be little hope for overcoming the vitriolic patina that most of the primary candidates acquired.

Let’s take a candid look at the consequence of the Establishment’s attempt to bring pressure to bear from multiple sources with a view to destroying Donald Trump as a viable candidate for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination. Consider the nominees that the Party has put forward in 1988 (George H.W. Bush), 1992 (George H.W. Bush), 1996 (Bob Dole), 2000 (George W. Bush), 2004 (George W. Bush), 2008 (John McCain), and 2012 (Mitt Romney)–all Presidential candidates for whom the Establishment likely orchestrated or manipulated the nomination process to ensure that the “appropriate” candidate managed to at least limp across the primary finish line. None of the above-mentioned nominees was a particularly inspiring candidate that primary voters would have selected on their own. Instead, the voters deferred to the GOP leadership and, by and large, supported the Establishment’s nominee of choice. All of those Establishment candidates either lost handsomely or were elected marginally and conducted their administrations in very Democrat-like, tax and spend fashion. H.W.’s win in 1988 was likely attributable to the desire of the folks to continue the Reagan Revolution, and W.’s wins in 2000 and 2004 were likely attributable to the weakness of his Democrat opponents (Al Gore and John Kerry respectively).

And so, Republican voters, having had quite enough of years of Presidential loses or misery at the hands of the Establishment, have come up with a novel solution–namely, selecting a non-Establishment candidate like Donald J. Trump. And the GOP Establishment’s elitist response has been truly amazing. After years of expecting fealty from Republican voters for lousy, losing, legacy nominee selections by the Establishment, the Party’s response to Donald Trump has been–“Voters? What do they have to do with our selection process? We know what’s best for the Party and its members will eventually come to appreciate our wisdom and perspicacity.” The conventional beltway position seems to be that, if the voters lack the instinct to select a candidate who will play ball with the GOP Establishment, then the Establishment will just have to do what is needed to make sure the voters don’t hurt themselves or the country (or jeopardize the Establishment’s sinecure).

Having worked very hard to incur the wrath of grass roots Republicans since 1996 or before, the Establishment has decided to double down with arrogance, condescension, underhandedness, and electoral duplicity.

The Party seems intent on spinning into a self-induced death spiral. The Party professes to be concerned about the tenor and temperament of its putative nominee, Donald Trump. What the Party really needs to concern itself with, however, is the fact that more and more of the Party faithful are ready, willing and able to take a political hike–and it is only the prospect of a Trump candidacy that is holding them in check.

© 2016




Are we the only ones that have a hard time concentrating on a Hillary speech?

She starts out in a sort of rational tone and works herself up in to a screeching rant that is most annoying and vaguely reminiscent of Howard Dean. Four years of that and we’ll all wind up in a rubber room.   Suggested Trump nickname for Hillary – “Shrill Hill.”

Hillary is her own bobble-head. Whenever she makes a forceful point with which she agrees, her head bobs up and down in a way that would make any major leaguer proud, and she doesn’t stop bobbing until the applause has died down.

We are looking forward to watching the Secret Service working to defend President Hillary while law enforcement officers attempt to drag her out of the Oval Office to stand trial for negligent disclosure of national secrets. Will she be able to pardon herself if convicted? Can she pardon herself before conviction and avoid trial altogether?


Bumper Sticker – “Elect Putin: Put a Competent Communist in the White House”

He may not be a Muslim, but his obvious affinity for Islam makes him, at best, a CINO (Christian in Name Only).

Obama suggests that Trump apparently fails to understand what a serious job being President of the United States is. We assume that, by that remark, Obama means that the President must be willing to stay on top of his golf game, must be willing to endure long flights at taxpayer expense to exotic vacation destinations, and must be willing to read speeches on the teleprompter that have been written by others. Damn, throw us in that “serious briar patch.”

Race Relations-

How does it improve race relations to always blame the cop with a gun and ignore the prior bad conduct of the shooting “victim?”

Why is it so difficult for people to believe that there are more blacks in jail because blacks commit more crimes? Oops! We forgot about the corrupt law enforcement and judicial system which persecutes and prosecutes more black criminals for no apparent reason and just for the fun of it.

How come a black person cannot be a racist (even if his or her comments or actions are clearly motivated only by race), but a white person is almost always deemed to be a racist (even if his or her comments or actions are obviously wholly unrelated to race)?

If reparations are due to certain groups as a consequence of ancestral slavery, why not the descendents of union soldiers who were killed or maimed during the Civil War in the effort to free the slaves?


Does anyone disagree that the first act of an all-Republican controlled government should be to pass legislation requiring Members of Congress to be bound by all of the laws to which it subjects the rest of us-including Obamacare? And, no, they don’t get to beg off by saying that they have purchased other health insurance (using taxpayer dollars). Let’s see how long Obamacare lasts when the Senators don’t get to keep their doctors, keep their plans, and go to the nearest hospital for treatment (and we are not talking about free hospital care for privileged Congressmen). And, oh yeah, the rest of us pay for our stamps, health clubs, country clubs, lunches, and Uber. A few less perks and maybe we can get back to the citizen legislators that the Founding Fathers had in mind. And the second act of a Republican government? Abolish the Department of Education, the EPA, the SEC, the Labor Department, and the Department of Agriculture – just for starters.

Long-term objective – ease back onto the Gold Standard (no more quantitative easing).



Does the Party that seeks to become the Party of the People get off to a good start by having a Chairman named “Reince Prebus”?


Here’s an alternate proposal. After Mexico pays for the wall on our southern border, let’s have them pick up the tab for medical care, law enforcement, education, and taxes attributable to the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. We don’t have to give them citizenship, but at least we can be a bit more charitable knowing that they are paying (or, more accurately, Mexico is paying) their way.


Has anyone else wondered if the restoration of the Capitol dome is intended as a metaphor for the federal government generally? It’s something that should have been taken care of over time, it is incredibly costly, nobody appears to be working on it, it apparently will take forever to complete, and it will come in well over budget. And, if you want a second opinion, it’s ugly too.

© 2016




Ain’t politics grand? Donald Trump wins the GOP Presidential nomination fair and square, and now most of the folks who promised to support the eventual nominee are either backpedaling or outright reneging. I guess what they meant was that they promised to support the nominee “so long as they were the nominee.”

And now, as if to further demonstrate that the GOP Establishment doesn’t give a fig about what Republican voters want, Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, has decided that he “isn’t quite ready to support” Trump. Apparently, after a staggeringly contentious primary, the Establishment believes that having the Party badly fractured is a good posture to take us up to the Convention in July, through the Convention, and during the run up to the election in November. The Party might as well just pin a note on the back of its institutional shirt that reads “I’m Dumb.”

But suddenly, the Obama administration hands us an issue that should rally and cement all Republicans.

As you may be aware, the State of North Carolina passed a law that requires individuals who are born male to use the “Men’s Room,” and individual who are born female to use the “Ladies’ Room.” Seems reasonable. Seems like a ratification of a long-standing human policy that, when it comes to bodily functions, men and women should repair to separate facilities. Who could possibly disagree with the approach that we have collectively taken since the middle ages that women ought not to have to be embarrassed by having men watch while they “do their thing,” and vice versa? If you guessed the “Obama administration,” you are, of course, correct.

The administration, flush (pun intended) from its victory of having the Supreme Court invent a Constitutional right to gay marriage, has decided that invasion of our potty rights is the next logical, progressive step in the destruction of our culture.

The Obama administration has concluded that the North Carolina statute is unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of sex. Even if one assumes that this is not sheer lunacy on the part of the DOJ, it is unclear to us exactly who is being discriminated against. Does it discriminate against men because they can’t use the women’s room, or against women because they can’t use the men’s room, or against men who think they would like to be women because they can’t use the women’s room, or against women who think they would like to be men because they can’t use the men’s room, or all of the above, or some combination of the above?

Here’s a dollop of common sense for the DOJ to consider; while integration may be okay for our public schools, separate but equal should remain the norm for our rest rooms.

Now all of this would be laughable, but for one condition. While the civilized way to resolve such a dispute would be to let the courts deal with the matter. The DOJ undoubtedly realizes that it would be laughed out of court, and, consequently, has taken a slightly more draconian approach. Bear in mind that the DOJ interpretation would apply, not just to public facilities, but to the facilities of private entities with more than 15 employees.

The DOJ has advised the State of North Carolina that, unless the State hews to the DOJs rest room access policy, the federal government will withhold all federal funds that would otherwise flow to North Carolina. Setting aside for the moment the notion that the money being withheld effectively came from the State in the first place, the DOJ’s position on this matter amounts to just plain blackmail. And it should not be condoned just because it is “Obama administrative blackmail.”   Allowing the Obama administration (or any other administration for that matter) to use taxpayer dollars to badger, berate and blackmail those same taxpayers is unconscionable. Blackmail is a crime, and in our estimation, those folks in the DOJ who are responsible for such conduct should go to jail.

So what does all of this have to do with redemption for Paul Ryan? Considering the degree to which he is in disrepute with Republicans because of his ill-considered failure to support his Party’s Presidential nominee, the “bathroom” issue provides Ryan, and his Establishment cohorts, an opportunity to prove that he is willing to listen to the voters and his constituents. He is willing to convince the Republican base with some evidence that the hard work they have done to hand the GOP majorities in both the House and the Senate was not in vain, and is willing to stand up against the unreasonable, intrusive and, frankly, stupid policies of the Obama administration.

Here are a few things that we think GOP leaders in the House and Senate might consider doing in response to yet one more outrageous action by an already out-of-control administration:

  1. Pass legislation that prohibits the federal government from intruding on the gender or sex policies of the several States, or of private enterprise, with respect to rest rooms. It seems unlikely that the President would veto this legislation since the highpoint of his legacy would then become–the President who allowed men to use women’s rest rooms. If he were to veto the bill, you might even get enough Democrat votes to override an Obama veto.
  2. Immediately defund any portion of the Justice Department that has anything to do with this inane policy and with related threats of withholding of federal funds.
  3. Appoint a special committee to investigate the DOJ’s action regarding its policy, its use of blackmail to enforce the policy, and to determine whether any laws have been broken by those in the DOJ, or elsewhere in the administration.
  4. And if you really want to take a more global and forceful approach, enact legislation that prohibits any federal agency to threaten to withhold federal funds tied to any requirement that a municipality, an entity or an individual take any specific action without the prior consent of Congress.

Any takers regarding whether the feckless and impotent Republican Congressional majorities will pursue any of the above actions, or action of any kind, in response to the unconscionable policy of the DOJ?

Bear in mind that the next logical step would be for the DOJ to determine that “separate but equal” is not a sustainable approach to rest room use, and that all such facilities must become unisex. Why stop when you are on a roll?   And what do you suppose the DOJ will do when they find someone who believes that 100% of the time he/she is 50% male and 50% female. Will the DOJ insist that a door must be blasted between the men’s room and the ladies’ room so that this oppressed he/she can wander freely between the two?

At this very moment, Loretta Lynch, Attorney General and surrogate for the liberal Obama administration, has announced that North Carolina will feel the full weight of the DOJ since, after all, the right of men to use the little girls’ room is a logical extension of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Really? We don’t know what she actually thinks, but her recent pronouncements are classic examples of government overreach, unconstitutional violations of the Tenth Amendment, bureaucratic idiocy, and total contempt for the will and rights of the vast majority of honest, hard-working, sensible taxpayers.

We believe that this irrational intransigence on the part of the DOJ, and the Obama administration, is Donald Trump’s ticket to the White House. This is the federal government taking their notion of political correctness well beyond the absurd. Trump simply needs to tap in to the vast majority of sane voters’ belief that the continued expansion of the PC net must come to an end.

Surely, Speaker Ryan, you understand that the Obama administration is driving Americans to distraction, and that you and your fellow travelers are driving us to Trump.

So here is our challenge to you, Speaker Ryan. If you cannot protect little girls in the little girls’ room from indecent exposure by grown men, then you should acknowledge that there is no reason to have a Republican majority in the House and the Senate, surrender your gavel, and go home to Wisconsin. What do the American people have to do to convince you and your compatriots that we are sick and tired of this PC BS and your unwillingness to do anything about it? Hermaphrodites, bi-sexuals, and trans-genders thank you for your public service.

© 2016