Monday, May 30, 2016


Political foes:
Nothing new


I WAS COGITATING under the shower's hot water and it came to my mind that never have we demonized politicians as we are doing now.

The two politicians that came to mind are Donald Trump in the U.S. and Avigdor Lieberman in Israel. I am sure there are others, but these two make the headlines in the media I watch.

Then, once dry, I realized Solomon was right: there is nothing new under the sun, including demonizing politicians.

I am told that in America's early years politics was a vicious occupation. Not only were opponents slandered, libeled, and otherwise publicly abused, but duels were fought. The one most Americans remember - at least those who paid attention in History classes - was fought between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr

Most abuse was limited to words - verbal and print.

An article titled Founding Fathers' dirty campaign describes the verbal battles between Thom. Jefferson and John Adams.

Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.

Perhaps worse that what happened in the U.S.' formative years was David Ben Gurion's order, passed from Yigal Allon to Yitzak Rabin to fire on Menachem Begin's ship, the Altalena in obvious hopes of murdering his political opponent. He did manage to murder 16 men on the ship, men bringing weapons who came to fight for Israel's independence. Ben Gurion was not satisfied that the weapons on board the vessel would be shared with Ben Gurion's troops; he wanted it all.

TODAY we have riots against Donald Trump by people who support illegal immigration but want to deny free speech to those with whom they disagree.

The previous time there was organized violent reaction to politics was at the Democratic Party convention in Chicago in 1968 when, according to CNN, violence between police and anti-Vietnam war protesters in the streets and parks of Chicago gave the city a black-eye from which it has yet to completely recover..

While I got myself into a lather (literally and figuratively) in the shower, a little research convinces me that while I think it is disgraceful how we are behaving regarding politicians with whom we disagree - and those who have the "chutzpah" to disagree with OUR opinions - there really is "nothing new under the sun." Only the names are changed.

Friday, May 27, 2016


Don't individuals
Have rights, too?


FIRST IT WAS FLORISTS, then bakeries, now mental health practitioners and people who think they should have privacy in public restrooms.

Proprietors must sell to everyone who walks through their doors, even if the potential customer violates the proprietor's strongly held beliefs and even if a competitor's business is just across the street.

Now, in Tennessee, the ACLU and LGBT? communities are up in arms because the state has a new law allowing mental health practitioners reject patients they feel would violate “sincerely held principles.”

IT PAYS TO read the comics - that's my excuse, anyway. Had I missed my morning "funnies fix" I would not have known about Tennessee's new law.

The law, reports National Public Radio (NPR) under the headline Tennessee Enacts Law Letting Therapists Refuse Patients On Religious Grounds allows mental health counselors and therapists to refuse to treat patients based on religious objections or personal beliefs.

The NPR report continues Critics of the law say it could result in discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

The NPR account was one of several. Most eventually got around to stating that Gov. Bill Haslam said there are two key provisions of this legislation that addressed concerns I had about clients not receiving care. First, the bill clearly states that it ‘shall not apply to a counselor or therapist when an individual seeking or undergoing counseling is in imminent danger of harming themselves or others.’ Secondly, the bill requires that any counselor or therapist who feels they cannot serve a client due to the counselor’s sincerely held principles must coordinate a referral of the client to another counselor or therapist who will provide the counseling or therapy. (Emphasis mine.)

The Huffington Post had the most inflammatory headline: Tennessee Passes Anti-LGBT Counseling Bill

Tennessee legislators on Monday passed a bill that could jeopardize access to mental health treatment for LGBT individuals, part of a string of recent anti-LGBT legislation in the South.

The GOP-sponsored bill, which now goes to Gov. Bill Haslam (R), allows therapists and counselors to reject patients they feel would violate “sincerely held principles.”

The blog failed to mention if any Democrats voted in favor of the bill; in fact, the word "Democrat" never appeared in the blurb.

Moreover, the bill is a general protection. It would allow, for example, an atheist mental health worker to refer a fundamentalist Christian to a practitioner more in line with the patient's beliefs.

Less incendiary was the headline Tennessee governor signs 'therapist bill' into law and an article carried by CNN: Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam on Wednesday signed a bill into law that allows therapists and counselors with "sincerely held principles" to reject gay, lesbian, transgender and other clients.

The Tennessean (nee' Nashville Tennessean), under a headline reading Haslam signs bill giving therapists protections reports that Gov. Bill Haslam on Wednesday signed into law a controversial bill that says no licensed counselor or therapist must serve a client whose "goals, outcomes or behaviors” conflict with the counselor’s “sincerely held principles” — a measure the American Counseling Association had denounced as a “hate bill” against gay and transgender people.

In a related article, the Tennessean headlines: Third group pulls out of Nashville due to counseling law

One of the articles noted that the law might be a problem in rural areas where the people have access only to a limited number of mental health practitioners. The question becomes: how many LGBT? people live in those rural areas? Likewise, how many mental health practitioners “sincerely held principles” would be violated by such people?

Most mental health practitioners I have encountered in both metro and rural communities are liberals. As the Tennessean noted, the American Counseling Association had denounced as a “hate bill” against gay and transgender people.. Perhaps the ACA leadership only read the Huffington Post headline; selective reading, a hallmark of people with an agenda.

I have no problem with anti-discrimination laws - albeit there should only be one: "No discrimination allowed, period" - but where is the anti-discrimination law that protects straight, white, males? Where is the anti-discrimination law that protects small businesses with nearby competition?

If I have the only business of its type in my community, then I would expect to cater to whomever crossed the threshold of the establishment. Restrooms for my business would be too small for two people (other than parent and small child), so the transgender-in-progress issue is not applicable.

Friday, May 20, 2016


Half truth


I DON'T USUALLY VISIT Yahoo! News, but I was bored, so …

Two headlines caught my attention - that is what hedscq are supposed to do.

One Trump Fat Shames Christie: No More Oreos for VP-in-Waiting? reads: Donald Trump could have been fat shaming Gov. Chris Christie by telling him at a Thursday night New Jersey fundraiser "no more Oreos," or he could have just been taking a political potshot at Nabisco products, or both.

Another Yahoo! headline reads Donald Trump mocks Chris Christie's weight, telling rally 'he can't eat Oreos anymore'; this blubs over-long first 'graph reads Republican presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump appeared to mock the weight struggles of his rival-turned-supporter Chris Christie, telling a rally 'he's not eating Oreos anymore'. Discussing his own boycott of Oreos, as a response to the company moving some of its jobs to Mexico, Trump said he wasn't eating the snack and pointed at New Jersey governor and former presidential hopeful Christie, who had lap band surgery in 2013 to lose weight. "I'm not eating Oreos any more, you know that... but neither is Chris," Trump told supporters at a fundraiser to pay off Christie's debt accumulated by his defunct campaign for presidential nominee."

View video at

THE SECOND SLAP at Trump was a little better; it acknowledged the Trump said he wasn't eating the snack and pointed at New Jersey governor and former presidential hopeful Christie, who had lap band surgery in 2013 to lose weight. "I'm not eating Oreos any more, you know that... but neither is Chris."

I saw the clip and it in no way "shamed" Christie. Christie seemed amused by Trump's statement and apparently agrees with Trump about foregoing Mexican Oreos. The headline writers' (or their bosses) simply wanted to shame Trump.

If someone really loves the cream-filled cookie sandwich and wants to "Buy American," they can by Leaf Bakery's Hydrox; Nabisco's Oreo's are basically a copy of the Hydrox, which came first.

Trump is upset because Nabisco put 600 Chicago employees on the street. This, lest anyone forget, is Obama's political hometown and where his pal and former Obama Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, is mayor.

According to Snopes, While it's true that Nabisco's parent company announced the elimination of some jobs at a Chicago plant, the number of jobs affected was 600, and the facility was not closed. The company concurrently invested the expansion of manufacturing plants in three states, and Oreos remain in production in the U.S. at facilities in New Jersey, Oregon, and Virginia.

Snopes did NOT specify what Nabisco is/will be manufacturing in the Chicago plant that "was not closed."

The Chicago Tribune reported in 2015 that Mondelez International will lay off half of its 1,200 employees in its bakery on Chicago's Southwest Side after deciding to make a major investment in a Mexico plant rather than its long-standing facility here.

The company decided not to make a $130 million upgrade to the facility, the company's largest U.S. bakery, which dates to the 1950s, because the three unions that represent workers either did not make a proposal to keep the work or their concession packages were inadequate, said Laurie Guzzinati, a Mondelez spokeswoman.

The facility makes BelVita, Mini Chips Ahoy and Cheese Nips, among other products, and those will continue to be made in Chicago on seven production lines that will be upgraded. Nine other lines will shut down, and that work will be transferred to four state-of-the-art production lines in Salinas, Mexico.

The Chicago Tribune article failed to specify what products would be made in Mexico.

Meanwhile, the Chicago Business web site asks Could a President Trump stop Mondelez's Mexico move?

Why this was not asked of Obama; the move was announced in 2015.

The site cited several of Trump's proposals, but in the end failed to answer its own question.

Perhaps he could follow Obama's lead and issue unconstitutional executive orders.

A little Hydrox history

HydroxTM is the original creme-filled chocolate sandwich cookie! It debuted in 1908 and was manufactured by Sunshine Biscuits. Sunshine Biscuits was purchased by Keebler in 1996, and in 1999, Keebler replaced HydroxTM with a similar but reformulated product named Droxies. Keebler was later acquired by Kellogg's in 2001. Kellogg's removed Droxies from the market in 2003.

Leaf Brands is proud to bring back the original sandwich cookie, HydroxTM! Yep, it predated Oreo and was always free of animal fats. The new HydroxTM release will be exactly the way you remember it, circa 1908 to 1999. It will taste like the original HydroxTM you remember; less sweet than the others and those amazing crispier cookies!

Wednesday, May 18, 2016


Trump willing
To open talks
With N. Korea


It worked for Obama
It worked for Nixon
It worked for Regan

According to Reuters, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said on Tuesday he is willing to talk to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to try to stop Pyongyang's nuclear program, proposing a major shift in U.S. policy toward the isolated nation.

In a wide-ranging interview with Reuters, Trump also called for a renegotiation of the Paris climate accord, said he disapproved of Russian President Vladimir Putin's actions in eastern Ukraine, and said he would seek to dismantle most of the U.S. Dodd-Frank financial regulations if he is elected president.

The presumptive Republican nominee declined to share details of his plans to deal with North Korea, but said he was open to talking to its leader.

Precedent firmly established

Obama & Castro

ABC News reported on March 21, 2016 that
    President Obama is in bilateral talks with Cuban leader Raul Castro, following an official welcoming ceremony at the presidential palace in Havana this morning.

    The president’s full day of events in Cuba marks the first time a sitting U.S. president has visited the island nation since Coolidge arrived by boat 88 years ago.

Cuba was blockaded by another Democrat, John Kennedy, more than 50 years before Obama's visit.

While Cuba had been "gifted" with Soviet missiles, the country never fought against the U.S. The famous "Battle of San Juan Hill (or Heights" was fought as part of the Spanish-American War in 1898 and against Spanish regulars, not Cubans.

Nixon & Mao

U.S. President Richard Nixon's 1972 visit to the People's Republic of China was an important step in formally normalizing relations between the United States and China. It marked the first time a U.S. president had visited the PRC, which at that time considered the U.S. one of its foes, and the visit ended 25 years of separation between the two sides.

Before even being elected president, Nixon had talked of the need for better relations with the PRC, with which the U.S. did not maintain diplomatic relations as it recognized the government of the Republic of China on Taiwan as the government of China. Early in his first term, Nixon and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger began sending subtle overtures hinting at warmer relations to the PRC government. After a series of these overtures by both countries, Kissinger flew on secret diplomatic missions to Beijing, where he met with Premier Zhou. On July 15, 1971, the President announced that he would visit the PRC the following year. (2)

“There is no place on this small planet for a billion of its potentially most able people to live in angry isolation.” Richard Nixon, after his election in 1968, pushed for better relations with China despite historical tensions and hostilities. In 1971, National Security Advisor and future Secretary of State Henry Kissinger took two trips to China – the first made in secret – to consult with Premier Zhou Enlai. After more than two decades of icy relations, Nixon embarked on a trip to China starting on February 22, 1972. Not only did this visit strengthen Chinese-American relations, but it also served to encourage progress with the USSR. (3)





Nixon also managed to reduce tensions with the Soviet Union's Leonid Brezhnev, yet he is only remembered for remaining loyal to a small group of people who, on their own initiative, broke into DNC headquarters in the Watergate Hotel in Washington.

Regan & the "Evil Empire"

President Regan had a long history with Soviet leaders

According to the Shmoop site,

    Many of Reagan's greatest admirers today celebrate his strong anti-Soviet stance, arguing that Reagan's firmness in waging the Cold War led directly to the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. Reagan's aggressive policy toward the Soviets, they say, ended up winning the Cold War for the United States. Reagan's detractors, by contrast, argue that he was recklessly and unnecessarily militant, and that only the good fortune of sane leadership in Moscow saved us all from nuclear apocalypse.

    Both groups are mostly wrong.

    In fact, Reagan's diplomatic legacy was more complicated than either his admirers or critics are likely to admit. Reagan did lead the United States to victory in the Cold War. But his greatest successes came during his second term, when he abandoned his earlier steadfastness to take a much more flexible stance in his relations with reformist Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan found victory when he found the courage to compromise. By acting as Gorbachev's partner as much as his enemy, Reagan helped the Soviet leader to dismantle the erstwhile "Evil Empire" peacefully, from within.

    Then, in 1985, soon after Reagan's second inauguration, the vigorous, 54-year-old Gorbachev ascended to the leadership. He wanted to demilitarize Soviet foreign policy so that he could divert resources to the Augean task of fixing a broken economy. Initially, he expected no help from Reagan, whom he regarded as "not simply a conservative, but a political 'dinosaur.'"

In the Jack F. Matlock Jr. book, Reagan and Gorbachev: Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended, Matlock /writes:

    Asked at a press conference in Moscow in 1988, his last year in office, about the role he played in the great drama of the late 20th century, he described himself essentially as a supporting actor. "Mr. Gorbachev," he said, "deserves most of the credit, as the leader of this country."

    This quotation was much cited at the time as an example of Reagan's graciousness, tact and self-deprecation. But Matlock's book bears out his former boss's judgment. The 40th president of the United States emerges here not as a geopolitical visionary who jettisoned the supposedly accommodationist policies of containment and detente, but as an archpragmatist and operational optimist who adjusted his own attitudes and conduct in order to encourage a new kind of Kremlin leader.

During his first term, Reagan denounced the pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union as an "evil empire." The name-calling riled many Soviets (and more than a few Sovietologists) but did little diplomatic harm, since relations between Washington and Moscow were already in a rut. The Kremlin had become a geriatric ward, with Red Square doubling as the world's largest funeral parlor.

Opinion on a small island

In researching the above I stumbled upon several sites concerned with Islam in the UK.

Book reviewer Peter Preston, reviewing David E. Hoffman's The Deadly Hand writes that

    So many of us got so much wrong through the years of fear. Polite opinion in Britain (my own included) quavered and cringed when Ronald Reagan became president of the United States. We saw a bemused ex-actor peddling conservative bromides. We saw a man who wasn't clever enough, or experienced enough, to stack Pershing 2s against Moscow's Pioneers. We prophesied doom. And yet – for very good reasons – Reagan, like Gorbachev, is a hero in Hoffman's eyes.

The English seem to worry equally about Trump. Their prime minister, David Cameron, calls Trump's proposed Muslim travel ban "stupid," and the former leader of Scotland labeling the mogul "three times a loser."

Perhaps Trump has in mind the Shiria No-Go zones on Cameron's little island. The Breitbart site has several videos showing how shiria is taking over parts of England and disregards English law.

Nigel Farage, head of the UK's Independent Party, claims that "ghettos" in parts of the UK are being run according to Shiria law as authorities "turn a blind eye" because of their "moral cowardice".

He contends that “big ghettos” have sprung up in Britain and Europe where child sex abuse, female genital mutilation, extremism and Shiria law were allowed to flourish.

"Why would Great Britain, France, Belgium or any other country, the Netherlands, why would they allow people to come to the country, not assimilate, separate, take their land ostensibly and risk even being at war with them when shiria, if you're coming from a country that you grew up under shiria, those values directly contradict the values of Western countries, why would anybody allow that?" Hannity asked.

According to hate preacher Anjem Choudary told the UK's Daily Mail "We want to run the area as a Shiria-controlled zone and really to put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.’

Choudary has claimed responsibility for the poster campaign, saying he plans to flood specific Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the UK and ‘put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.’

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

I have rights, too

Simple solutions
To transgender
Bathroom woes


UNLESS THEY ARE EXIBITIONISTS, most people are uncomfortable sharing a bathroom, shower, or locker room with a person of the opposite sex.

There are two possible solutions to Obama's latest attack on the majorities' civil rights.

OPTION ONE: Have three facilities: one for males, one for females, and one for transgender "works-in-progress."

Parents with very small children are exempt.

Perhaps Obama can pay for the additional facilities out of his own pocket; this should not be a burden on all taxpayers.

This "three facility" policy would apply to all public buildings, including schools, restaurants, department stores, bus/train depots, airports and seaports, etc. and "et al."

At the same time, all single-sex businesses must open up to people of both sexes; no more Shapes for women, no more men-only saunas.

The other option is to allow transgender people who have completed their sex change access to the facility matching their (new) body.

Transgenders "in progress" would have to use the facilities of their body's current sex. In other words, a male transitioning to female would be obliged to use the men's facilities until he has exchanged his penis for a vagina. Likewise, a female transitioning to a male would be considered a female until she surrenders her vagina for a penis that is permanently attached - no belts or other temporary attachments.

I am not concerned about the person's internal organs; I'm unaware that surgeons are able to implant the relevant organs to permit a formerly female person to impregnate a formerly male person.

BULFLASH: The CBS station in Boston MA reports that a Halifax Man Receives First Penis Transplant In U.S. At Mass General, so now there is hope for a transgender female to "man up" completely. (The story also appears in The New York Times and USA Today)

I am against civil rights laws for this group or that group. There should be one law that simply states: Discrimination is illegal. Period.

What is happening today is that the U.S. has laws prohibiting discrimination against everything EXCEPT John and Jane Doe who have no disabilities or conflicts with their sexual identity or preference.

A person with a disability usually does not elect to have a disability.

The argument continues to rage if a person has a choice in his or her sexual preference, or if there is a choice with which sex the person is comfortable.

It is MY preference, MY civil rights, not to have a female in a males' restroom; my spouse's preference is not have have a male in the female's restroom.

But, being broadminded and not wishing to trample any one else's civil rights - without surrendering my own - if the "man" standing next to me has all the physical attributes of a man, then well and good. If a "woman" has all the physical attributes of a female and chooses to use the women's facilities, fine.

Transgenders as a "work in progress" need to use the facility appropriate for their physical attributes.

An pro-transgender article on the left-leaning NPR web site dismisses crime reports as "anecdotal.' Apparently the NPR folks never bother to look up the word's definition.

Ron Baity, president of Return America and others with similar beliefs offer anecdotal evidence — crime reports — to support their claims.

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Democracy NOT at work

Fun & games


TED CRUZ who "suspended" his campaign after repeatedly losing to Donald Trump is, according to the tv talking heads, considering "unsuspending" his campaign.

Will he resurrect his failed campaign as an independent or will he try to deny the voters' mandates via the GOP convention?

MEANWHILE Hillary Clinton, determined to carry on her mentor's "awful" legacy* is unconcerned about the fact that Bernie Sanders seems to be winning in both town and country elections, expecting "super delegates" to save her no matter how popular Sanders is with voters across the country.

The question for Hillary: Is Sander's message getting the votes of are Clinton's lies and scandals losing her votes?

Cruz managed to win 500-plus delegates before Trump took a commanding delegate lead. Then Cruz, and his political partner, John Kasich - having agreed to a non-compete contract to win delegates where each thought he had a chance against Trump - dropped out of the race.

So far, Kasich has stood by his word and not, as has Cruz, threatened to renege and re-enter the race.

Rumor is that Cruz is heartily disliked by his fellows in Congress. There are multiple web sites attesting to this and what Cruz did to earn the displeasure of his fellow club members, including:

To cite just three sites (that I sighted?)

Being disliked by Congress isn't necessarily fatal to a president's plans, but belong respected by Congress - because he knew where "the bodies were buried" - allowed LBJ to get a number of not-particularly-popular-in-Congress programs passed; Head Start and the War on Poverty to name two.

Admittedly, many members of Cruz' Capitol Hill club also would like to see an establishment, old guard, easy-to-keep-in-line candidate rather than the spoiler Trump. It seems only the people - who really do NOT have a vote (at the convention) - want Trump as their candidate.

    If you failed to learn it in grammar school. The U.S. has a "republican" (lower case "r") form of government. We "sort of" elect people to vote our proxy at the conventions. A "democratic" (lower case "d") form of government would have all eligible citizens directly vote for the candidate of their choice, doing away with conventions and the (in)famous "smoke-filled back room deals."

ON THE DEMOCRATIC (party) side, Sanders is gaining on Clinton. One reason may be Clinton is playing the conservative card while Sanders is a "died-in-the-wool and happy to admit it" Socialist. Sanders apparently has the youth vote, but then he promises free university education.

    QUESTION: Who is going to pay for this "free" education? The taxpayer pays for every other "free" benefit. Perhaps this benefit will be paid by mortgaging our great grandchildren - the grandchildren already are mortgaged to the hilt (and owned by China).

On the other hand, the LA Times' David Lauter considers Why the more liberal Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton among more conservative Democrats

At one point, Sanders admitted he probably could not defeat Clinton, but he wanted to have a say in building the party platform.

Sanders - to date - has far fewer earned-by-vote count delegates to the convention than Clinton. Clinton considers the party's super delegates to be in her hand, so no matter how many voters prefer Sanders, she has the nomination locked up.

ABOUT THOSE "SUPER DELEGATES" describes super delegates thusly:

    Super delegates are not selected on the basis of party primaries and caucuses in each state. Instead, super delegate standing is based on the status of current or former officeholders and party officials, including all Democratic members of Congress. Super delegate is a term that arose in the 1970s.

    In order for a candidate to win the party nomination for president, he or she must gain the majority of delegate votes. The purpose of super delegates is for high-ranking Democrats to maintain some control over the nominating process. Super delegates make up one-fifth of the delegates at the Democratic National Convention. So, 747 of the 5,083 delegates attending the 2016 Democratic National Convention can choose whichever candidate they prefer.

Wikipedia identifies the super delegates and the candidates they are pledged to support. Clinton has far and away the most super delegates.

The Huffington Post apparently neither a fan of Clinton or the super delegate process, claims in a headline that Clinton and the DNC Are Not Just Colluding — They’re Changing the Rules for Super delegates.

The Post contends that

    in the context of Democratic National Committee rules — which, as DNC officials Luis Miranda and Debbie Wasserman Schultz have both explained to the media repeatedly, dictate that super-delegates cannot be tallied until July — there can be no doubt about which sentence in the above-cited NBC News story is the most important. It’s this one, about what the Clinton campaign and the DNC have been up to since April (more than three months prior to the Party’s late-July convention).

The Post goes on to state

On February 19th, only two states — Iowa and New Hampshire — had held primary votes for the Democratic presidential nomination. The results in Iowa (a tie) and New Hampshire (a landslide victory for Bernie Sanders) had at that point made Sanders the front-runner for the nomination.

Sanders was the leader in the popular vote.

Sanders was the early leader in the all-important pledged-delegate count.

And here’s where the super-delegate count stood on February 19th:

    Hillary Clinton: 451 Bernie Sanders: 19

The U.S. electoral system was put into place before we had access to nearly instantaneous communication over great distances. Now, at least in theory, American's eligible and legal voters could directly cast their ballots for this candidate or that - turning America into a democracy! The "in theory" is because that has been, since voting first began, voting fraud. Add to that we now have lost all protection that our communications are private or that they will arrive in the same way they were sent - a vote for candidate "A" will remain a vote for candidate "A" when the votes are counted.

The Politico web sites reported that as of March 24, Trump had 1,134 delegates to Cruz' 564. Marco Rubio had 166 before he dropped out. No other GOP candidates had double-digit pledged delegates. If Cruz "drops back in," the best he can do in the delegate race is a poor second behind Trump, even if Rubio gives him his delegates. Again, this delegate count is from March.

If Trump, Sanders, and Clinton fail to win your vote, consider the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson or the Green Party's Dr. Jill Stein.


* According to Hillary's husband, ex-president Wm. Clinton.

Wednesday, May 11, 2016


Who took
Our rights
From us?


The headline asks the question: "Who took our rights away from us?"

The knee jerk reaction - even mine - is "The Republicans, of course."


The Internet is a wonderful collector of information. Some sources more trustworthy than others.

But the Congressional Record is pretty reliable.

Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, US Senate bills S.390 and S.761.[then-Senator) Joe Biden introduced the bill on behalf of the Clinton Administration on Feb. 10, 1995. The bill was co sponsored by senators
Alfonse D'Amato,
Dianne Feinstein,
Robert J. Kerrey,
Herb Kohl,
Jon Kyl,
Barbara A. Mikulski and
Arlen Specter.
Representative Chuck Schumer sponsored the bill (H.R. 896) in the US House of Representatives. Following closely on the heels of Executive Order 12947, prohibiting transactions with terrorists, President Clinton described the bill as a "comprehensive effort to strengthen the ability of the United States to deter terrorist acts and punish those who aid or abet any international terrorist activity in the United States" and requested "the prompt and favorable consideration of this legislative proposal by the Congress".

Above from Wikipedia; sources carefully cited on the Wikipedia page.

Another well-sourced bit of information about the Patriot Act of 2001, an expanded version of the liberals' Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 is found on the page under the title Joe Biden Drafted the Core of the Patriot Act in 1995 … Before the Oklahoma City Bombing

Granted, Republican Geo. W. Bush ("Bush 2") signed the Patriot Act into law in 2001 after 9-11-2001, but Biden himself draws parallels between his 1995 bill and its 2001 cousin. “I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill,” he said when the Patriot Act was being debated, according to the New Republic, which described him as “the Democratic Party’s de facto spokesman on the war against terrorism.”

The apparently right-wing Center For National Security Studies describes the Biden/Clinton Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 bill as a mixture of: provisions eroding constitutional and statutory due process protections, selective federalization -- on political grounds -- of state crimes (minus state due process rules), discredited ideas from the Reagan and Bush Administrations, and the extension of some of the worst elements of crime bills of the recent past. and then goes on to list what it perceives as the 1995 bill's aims.

Remember who signed off on the Biden/Clinton bill. (If you forgot, go back a few paragraphs.)

The web site lists which senators and representatives voted on the Patriot Act (for and against) following 9-11-2001. The site also identifies who voted on the reauthorizing the Act in 2006. The 2001 bill had support on both sides of the aisle.

What started as a liberal attack on American's civil rights ended up with bipartisan support - but we still hear clicks when we talk on the phone and we have to wonder why an email takes hours to arrive. Worse, we have lost the right to face our accusers and, in some instances, to even know of what we are accused.

The impact of the Muslim terrorist attack on 9-11-201 lingers on.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016


"PC" on a field
Of bovine feces


IT IS NO WONDER THAT "The Donald" (Trump) has such a following.

Under liberal Democrats, political correctness and "all others' rights" rule.

Case in point: A federal DEPARTMENT (Justice) is telling states that they must allow transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice.


As a white male, my civil rights have been limited for years.

Females must be admitted to male-only domains and organizations, but males can be - and are - banned from female domains and organizations (think Shapes; it advertises "Shapes Total Fitness locations are exclusively for women.")

Female reporters voyeuristically wander males' locker rooms to get a story; has anyone ever heard of a male reporter being allowed in a female athlete's locker room?

Now, a federal department - not Congress, not a court, and not even Obama with his penchant for executive orders that run roughshod over the constitution - has ordered states to let transgender people - those who consider themselves a sex other than their biological sex - entry into any public- accessible bathroom regardless of their biological sex.

For the record, when I learned English, "sex" was a male and female identifier for humans; "gender" was for everything else. Many non-English languages apply "gender" to objects such as tables and anatomical parts such as eyes. Even in casual English, couples have "sexual relations," they don't have "gender relations."

Mrs. Clinton, if elected, promises to keep up Obama's good work, to sustain his legacy, a legacy that her husband called "awful." (There goes HIS shot at a cabinet position.)

And then there is that nasty word "terrorism."

It seems almost nothing is "terrorism" any more, and never, never are the words "Muslim" and "terrorism" allowed to be uttered together. In Germany a Muslim attacked people with a knife at a train depot while exclaiming "Allah is Great."

"Allah is Great" it the battle cry of Muslim terrorists around the globe.

But if a mass murderer is a Muslim he - or she - obviously cannot be a "terrorist." Saying that, even in the face of clear evidence that yes, the attacker IS a Muslim and a terrorist is not "PC." Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist; the Unabomber was a terrorist. But neither was Muslim so calling them terrorists is OK, it's PC.

AND THEN WE HAVE the U.S Agency for International Development giving Hamas - which the U.S. considers a terror organization and with which it has no official relations - $50 million for an aid program for the Gaza Strip.

This $50 million is on top of $5.4 BILLION pledged at a donor conference meant to raise funds to rebuild the Gaza Strip. Qatar, which is close to the enclave’s rulers, offered the most. (To be fair, Robert Turner, the Gaza head of UNWRA – the UN agency for Palestine refugees – said that “virtually none” of the pledged funds had reached the territory.)

Who will monitor the fund the American taxpayer is giving to Hamas, considered a terrorist group not just by the U.S. but by a number of other nations as well? The watchdog will be Catholic Relief Services.

Does anyone have information on how Hamas treats non-Muslims, in fact anyone other than its Sunni brand of Islam? How does Hamas deal with Christians in Gaza? The Rescue web site has an article titled Christians In Gaza Have Faced Increasing Persecution Since Hamas Wrested Control that gives a "clue" how the Catholic Relief Services will be greeted and tolerated. The Gatestone Institute also discuses the The Disquieting Treatment of Christians by the Palestinians. I could have cited the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs article The beleaguered Christians of The Palestinian-controlled areas but it might be considered biased, at least by the politically correct.

Even the UN's Blue Bonnets cower from Hamas' militias and allow Hamas to use UN facilities as points to launch rockets into Israel - and places to hide when Israel retaliates.

Asking U.S. taxpayers to rebuild Gaza following damage inflicted by Israel in response to continued Hamas attacks is "PC" as is condemning Israel for the"chutzpah" of defending its citizens from Hamas attacks.

Interesting to note that while Americans are giving Hamas $50 million, there are those in Gaza City who don't seem to be suffering, at least not according to a YouTube video at

What America needs is not "a good five cent cigar" but a leader in the mold of Harry S (no period) Truman (remember the Berlin Airlift?)

Monday, May 9, 2016


Does Trump need
GOP establishment?


A CARTOON I SAW SUGGESTS THAT "The Donald" might be bettered off WITHOUT the backing of the Republican establishment.

Since many of the "Old Guard" Republicans find it hard to get behind the candidate who, based on his vote count, clearly is the choice of the rank-and-file - or alternatively, seeing that the "Old Guard's preferences* were rejected by the rank and file - perhaps Trump SHOULD thumb his nose at the establishment.

Cartoon from Yaakov Kirschen's Dry Bones blog

Which "establishment" pols are, as of May 9, 2016, either attacking Trump or pretending they can't make up their minds, include

    Geo. Romney, failed candidate,
    Jeb Bush, failed candidate,
    John Kasich, failed candidate,
    and Ted Cruz, failed candidate

The remaining GOP dropouts may think silence is the better part of political posturing, perhaps eyeing a possible Trump invitation to be on the ticket as vice president. Failing that, there will be a plethora of cabinet positions to fill.

Marco Rubio might being some Latino voters into Trump's camp, along with those Mexicans who understand Mexican criminals only turn other Americans against them - unjust, perhaps, but that's human nature. The same should hold true for American Muslims, albeit there are no Muslim candidates to run with Trump.

Ben Carson and Chris Christie, both failed candidates, have had some kind words for Trump, but I have not heard any failed Republican candidate tell his supporters to go with Trump; to tell his (or her, in Carly Florina's case) to cast their ballots for Trump if the convention is rigged to prevent his nomination by the establishment.

The U.S. has had other "blustering" presidents - Theo. (TR) Roosevelt comes to mind. We have had some "outrageous" presidents - my favorite is LBJ. We have had some presidents whose language was often "colorful" - Richard M. Nixon most notably We also have had presidents who were womanizers and who cheated on their spouses, some more than others. No one has accused Trump of cheating on a spouse - or being cheated on BY a spouse.

Trump IS an opportunist, and for America, that may be just what the country needs to restore our pride in ourselves, if not restore the U.S. to a leadership position. He apparently is pragmatic - he has admittedly given financial support to both Democratic and Republican politicians, and he has been known to revisit - or "backtrack" - on positions that might prove unattainable.

Mrs. Clinton can justly claim she has a wealth of international experience as Secretary of State under Obama - Arab Spring, Iran nuke deal, and Benghazi come to mind. But Trump also has international experience, dealing with governments and businesses alike. Certainly his overseas investments fly in the ace of his "bring jobs back to the U.S.A " position, but perhaps if he is elected he will set an example by doing just that - bringing back jobs to America.

What Trump - so far - is not is in the "establishment's" pocket, be the "establishment" the GOP (questionable) leadership, the D.C. politicians' club, or the lobbyists clique.

Maybe cartoonist Yaakov Kirschen is right; Trump may be better off without the support of the failed candidates and a still undecided Paul Ryan.

Sunday, May 8, 2016


Is what they say
About Hillary true?
Check the source(s)


The following was appended to a Washington Times piece by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich headed "Understanding Donald Trump". It was NOT part of the article.

According to the email that carried the following, all the claims are true, but being a former reporter & editor, I kept wanting the author - perpetrator? - to CITE THE SOURCE. I did NOT author the following (other than to insert:
Source URL: (and any relevant Web site)

You can find the following - sans my URL - at several URLs on the WWW using any decent search engine.

By the way, there is a similar "Did you hear" litany for Obama at; again, no citations.


Some of the issues may have been resolved, but the fact remains that it is her legacy, an indication of what to expect if she wins the Oval Office.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are in a bar. Donald leans over, and with a smile on his face, says,"The media are really tearing you apart for That Scandal."

Hillary: "You mean my lying about Benghazi ?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Source URL:

Hillary: "You mean the massive voter fraud?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Source URL:

Hillary: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Source URL:Not found although there are URLs about Obama and the military vote.

Hillary: "Using my secret private server with classified material to hide my activities?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Source URL:

Hillary: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything else?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Source URL:

Hillary: "Using the Clinton Foundation as a cover for tax evasion, hiring cronies, and taking bribes from foreign countries?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Source URL:

Also see:

Hillary: "You mean the drones being operated in our own country without the benefit of the law?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Source URL: Lots of URLs about drones over America, but none linking Hillary

Hillary: "Giving 123 Technologies $249 Million, and right afterward it declared bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Source URL:
ASIDE: The Chinese company bought 123 for only $256.6M

Hillary: "You mean arming the Muslim Brotherhood and hiring them in the White House?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Source URL: Only URLs reporting Brotherhood members guests at White House

Hillary: "Whitewater, Watergate committee, Vince Foster, commodity deals?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Source URL:; also

Hillary: "The IRS targeting conservatives?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Source URL:IRS did target conservatives ( but Clinton not named.

Hillary: "Turning Libya into chaos?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Source URL:
Also see:

Hillary: "Trashing Mubarak, one of our few Muslim friends?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Source URL:

Hillary: "Turning our backs on Israel ?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Source URL:

Hillary: "The joke Iran Nuke deal? "
Trump: "No the other one:"

Hillary: "Leaving Iraq in chaos? "
Trump: "No, the other one."
Source URL:

Hillary: "The DOJ spying on the press?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Source URL: There are a number of DOJ & spying URLs, but none with a Hillary connection. There are a number of URLs about Hillary avoiding the media, including

Hillary: "You mean HHS Secretary Sibelius shaking down health insurance Executives?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Source URL:Multiple URLs on Sibelius and insurance companies, but none mention Clinton.

Hillary: "Giving our cronies in Solyndra $535 million dollars and 3 months later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Source URL: Actually after receiving the bail out and bankruptcy, Solyndra shareholder George Kaiser hosted a fundraiser for Clinton, perhaps in appreciation for a sweet tax deal. The Chinese did NOT buy the company (they did buy 123 Technologies following a similar bail out and bankruptcy - ibid.)

Hillary: "The NSA monitoring citizens?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Source URL:

Hillary: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General Investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Source URL:

Hillary: "Me, The IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Source URL:

Hillary: "Threats to all of Bill's former mistresses to keep them quiet"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Source URL:

Hillary: “You mean taking the $145,000,000.00 from Putin for the Uranium Bribe?“
Trump: "No the other one .”
Source URL: Also see

Hillary: "I give up! Oh wait, I think I've got it! When I stole the White House furniture, silverware and China when Bill left Office?"
Trump:"THAT'S IT! I almost forgot about that one".
Source URL:

In looking to sources for the above, I stumbled across some more interesting background on Mrs. Clinton, including:


Clinton opposed LGBTQ-friendly gender-neutral passport forms

Source URL:

IRS and Lost emails:

Source URL:

Hillary on Executive Power, Spying, and Privacy

Source URL:

Friday, May 6, 2016


Email always
Worth reading


AS A FORMER (now retired) enterprise risk management practitioner I get a 5 days-a-week email from ADVISEN, an organization for insurance and risk professionals. The post, Front Page News or "FPN" gives headlines and snippets of news of interest to insurance and risk management types.

When I was working I probably got a usable idea at least once a month; now as a retiree, I get fodder for this blog at about the same rate.

It's a Tony the Tiger GRRreat resource.

TODAY'S EMAIL caught my attention for three reasons.

One, a link to a Washington Post article about contaminated frozen veggies (with a long list of brand names to check available on the FDA web site at

Since some of the labels are national, I sent an email to the folks in my address book.

An advertisement for the Chinese-owned, Bermuda-based Ironshore Insurance Companies caught my attention.

OK, I admit to being a grammar pedant, but I read the advertisement in a way not intended by the advertising agency - proving once again, teaching - and learning - English in the modern educational system is simply not done.

Here's the advertisement:

Now I know the ad's creator expected the reader to assume that while other insurers were happy with a "94% claims satisfaction ratio," Ironshore won't settle for less than 100% satisfaction ratio. (When I was in grammar school, 94 + 6 = 100, but perhaps as has English, things are different now.)

I READ the ad as stating that at Ironshore, we forget about the 94% satisfaction ratio and we focus on "the other 6%" - in other words, Ironshore is satisfied with a six percent satisfaction ratio.

Again, I am at least 94% certain the ad's creator intended for readers to think Ironshore was "obsessed" with achieving a 100% satisfaction ratio.

Never the less, I take my humor where I find it.

NOW FROM FRANCE, where else (?), comes a CNN/Money article hededcq Employee is suing his boss because his job was too boring.

According to the CNN/Money article, A former employee is demanding 360,000 euros ($415,000) in damages for the distress.

The man worked for the company between 2010 and 2014. He claims his dull job, from which he was laid off 18 months ago, caused him to suffer a "bore out" that led to serious emotional and health issues.

Naturally the ex-employer tells a different story and a labor tribunal in Paris has been asked to resolve the issue. CNN/Money reports the back and forth claims and counter-claims on the cited URL.

I'm not sure about employment opportunities in France, but in the States, when I had a dead end job - I did, once - I quit and moved on.

Wednesday, May 4, 2016


It's a shame
What Feds do
To citizens


I'M READING A NOVEL from my local lending library - my tax dollars at work at least for a useful cause.

The book, Steve Martini's's Guardian of Lies is, according to my library, a blue dot "Who done it." (The library started putting color "bullets" on the books spines to ID the type book. Got'ta love the librarians.)

ANYWAY, as we get past the 3/4 mark - around page 460 of the no-squint version, Martini has his hero, attorney Paul Madriani, caught between the Feds and the local DA, with any civil rights he may have thought he had ignored like yesterday's newspaper - OK, yesterday's 15 second tv spot.

THE PROBLEM IS, Martini (the author) practiced law before both California and Federal benches before taking up the quill. I suspect he knows about what he writes.

And it's scary.

The abuse of power goes back BEFORE 9-11-2001, AND before THE SO-CALLED "Patriot Act" that stripped away most American's protection from snooping into our private affairs by cops of all varieties: municipal, county, state, and of course the multitude of Federal alphabet soup agencies.

Joe Biden drafted - and bragged about - the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 with the support of liberals in Congress including Senators Alfonse D'Amato, Dianne Feinstein, Robert J. Kerrey, Herb Kohl, Jon Kyl, Barbara A. Mikulski and Arlen Specter. Representative Chuck Schumer sponsored the bill (H.R. 896) in the US House of Representatives. Following closely on the heels of (Clinton's) Executive Order 12947, prohibiting transactions with terrorists, President Clinton described the bill as a "comprehensive effort to strengthen the ability of the United States to deter terrorist acts and punish those who aid or abet any international terrorist activity in the United States" and requested "the prompt and favorable consideration of this legislative proposal by the Congress". (Wikipedia)

The Patriot Act permits the government to eavesdrop on conversations, open mail, go through personal and business records, tap phones and intercept mobile phone conversations, and review emails, all on the whim of a bureaucrat claiming the purpose is to derail a terrorist.

Frequently, the person being spied upon is not a terrorist and has no connection with terrorists, but the spied upon has no knowledge of the spying and it he did, there is no way to find out who authorized the spying or what was discovered.

This Martini's book frighteningly sets forth.

Not only is his hero a victim of federal violation of his civil rights, he is caught in the middle of a territorial war between Washington and the local DA.

Guardian of Lies is, I hope, an author's imagination run amok, but I suspect given the mentality of some of the people - law enforcement types and officers of the court - that running roughshod over the Constitution and its several Amendments is a fact of life in America.

Not all cops or DAs are "bad." I know many who jealously guard the constitution.

The funny thing is, I would have thought that the Patriot Act and its predecessor, the "Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995" (OCA) would have been authored and supported by right-wing extremists, a/k/a Republican conservatives. I was more than a little surprised to learn that Joe Biden, Obama's VP, authored the OCA and that so many flag-waving liberals signed on as cosponsors of the bill approved during the term of Hillary's husband, Bill.

Of course, those same liberals blame Bush 2; just read Did We Forget What Led to the Patriot Act in the First Place? Bush’s Incompetence Before 9/11 to be "enlightened."

No matter, Martini's Guardian of Lies is a good yarn, but it IS scary to see how little privacy we have in this day and age. I think maybe we have allowed the governments to overstep their Constitutional restrictions. But then, as we are repeatedly told in school, "we" are the government. As Abe Lincoln stated: "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth" and then he crushed the people who wanted freedom from Federal tyranny.

*Harper-Collins Publishers, ISBN978-0-06-188140-4

Tuesday, May 3, 2016


Hillary to continue
Obama's legacy
Said "awful" by Bill


WITH THE CLINTONS, Bill and Hillary, who can you believe?

Hillary, stumping for votes, Warns Against 'Letting Obama's Legacy Fall Into Trump's Hands'

Meanwhile hubby Bill, who may not "have had sex" with Monica, may find he's not having sex with Hillary either after, according to one headline, Bill Clinton calls Obama legacy ‘awful,’ potentially dooming wife’s campaign

If she can't get her husband in line, imagine how she'll manage Congress and world powers, including Iran, Obama's protectorate. Anyone think the ayatollah will deal with a female head of the Big Satan?

ACCORDING TO ABC "NEWS," Hillary Clinton praised President Obama and warned that a Donald Trump presidency would damage his legacy Sunday during remarks at a large NAACP dinner in Detroit.

"We cannot let Barack Obama's legacy fall into Donald Trump's hands," the Democratic presidential candidate told the audience of roughly 6,000 people at the NAACP's Annual Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner, which is known as the "largest plated dinner in the country.

"We can't let all the hard work and progress we've achieved over the last seven and a half years be torn away. We have to move forward together. We have to bring our country together," she said. "We have to keep working toward the more perfect union."

In other words, another 4, possibly 8, years of Obama mismanagement and the decline of the United States to that of a laughing stock as a world leader. Only the name would be changed (Obama to Hillary).

Meanwhile, FLIP-N-FLOP ON USA Today: At a campaign stop for Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton referred to the last eight years of administration as an "awful legacy" but never mentioned President Obama's name. Now, Clinton's aid denies the statement was about Obama.

The Associated Press reported Bill Clinton said voters should support the former secretary of state for president "if you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that."

Bear in mind the candidate's

    Illegal email server and secret emails

    Staff's use of illegal emails, primarily related to the botched Benghazi defense that left four Americans dead.

    Her botched job as Secretary of State - Hillary Clinton’s Role in Benghazi: What You Need to Know

    Buying her Senate seat in New York State

    Her White Water scandal with hubby Bill

    Health-Care Gate: In 1997, federal judge Royce Lamberth levied $286,000 in sanctions against Bill Clinton’s administration for “running amok” in a “cover-up” of Hillary Clinton’s health-care task force. *

    Filegate: The confidential FBI files of up to 900 former Reagan and Bush appointees were sent over to White House security chief Craig Livingstone. Deputy White House counsel William Kennedy, a close friend of Hillary Clinton’s from their days at the Rose Law Firm, would frequently call up the FBI and have someone’s files sent over on his say-so. Then–FBI director Louis Freeh called it “an egregious violation of privacy.” *

    Cattle-Futures Gate: Hillary Clinton came under scrutiny when, during her tenure as first lady of Arkansas, she managed to turn a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into a profit of nearly $100,000 in only nine months. She claimed she had learned how to trade by reading the Wall Street Journal. Her broker had earlier been suspended from trading for a year after he was charged with manipulating the egg-futures market.*

    Travelgate: In May 1993, Hillary Clinton wrote an infamous note demanding action to “get our people” into the White House Travel Office. Billy Dale, its director, and six of his employees were quickly fired on the basis of rumors that they had engaged in criminal conduct; the rumors were cooked up in part by a 25-year-old cousin of Bill Clinton’s who wound up running the travel office.

    Dale was indicted on charges of embezzling $88,000 from the office. Jurors took only two hours to acquit him of all charges. Hillary Clinton refused an interview request from the General Accounting Office about her role in the affair. The late New York Times columnist Bill Safire concluded after Travelgate that Hillary Clinton was “a congenital liar.*

    Billing-Records Gate: The records of Hillary Clinton’s clients at the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas were subpoenaed for years by investigators looking into Whitewater. They were finally discovered on a coffee table in the private quarters of the White House. No one ever explained how they got there.*

* All "-Gate" items from

As far as defending women, Hillary has a long record of denigrating any woman who might have fallen under Bill's "influence," including:

    When Gennifer Flowers surfaced, saying that she had had a long affair with Mr. Clinton, Mrs. Clinton undertook an “aggressive, explicit direction of the campaign to discredit” the accuser. **

    Mrs. Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern who had an affair with the 42nd president, as a “narcissistic loony toon,” according to one of her closest confidantes, Diane D. Blair, whose diaries were released to the University of Arkansas after her death in 2000.

    Ms. Lewinsky later called the comment an example of Mrs. Clinton’s impulse to “blame the woman.”**

    Alexis Isabel Moncada, founder of Feminist Culture, said "“I heard he sexually harassed people and she worked to cover it up,"**

** Excerpted from The New York Times

I'm very sure that I would NOT want to
(a) continue Mr. Obama's legacy, and
(b) to have a president with Mrs. Clinton's background.

I'm not sure Mr. Trump is a better choice, but of the two (currently leading) candidates, I think Mr. Trump has "cleaner skirts" - less to deny.

I think Mr. Trump needs to find worthwhile advisers; Mrs. Clinton apparently failed in this as Secretary of State, else why the Benghazi disaster"?

I'm certain the people who grew up believing that if a Republican and a jackass were on the ballot, vote for the jackass, That these people will disbelieve anything negative about the Clintons just as they will applaud anything negative about her GOP opponent. These are, by and large, the same people who shout down and often physically abuse anyone who fails to kowtow to their way of "thinking."

Monday, May 2, 2016





If the world isn't laughing at Americans, it ought to be.

The WWW Is awash with headlines similar to the one from the Huffington Post that reads: Woman Files $5 Million Lawsuit Against Starbucks For Putting Too Much Ice In Her Drinks

You've GOT to be kidding.

I am not a fan of Starbucks; I don't like their coffee and all their drinks seem overpriced. (Maybe I just don't get out enough.)

IF I ordered a drink with ice in it and if I felt there was too much ice, I would complain - loudly if necessary - until some of the ice was replaced with whatever drink I ordered.

But SUE?


Over too much ICE?

I am reasonably certain the plaintiff has no expectation of winning more than whatever she paid for the over-iced drink.

In my opinion, unless a judge has a weird sense of humor, the case should be tossed out as being "frivolous," and all costs associated with the suit should be paid by the plaintiff.

I don't like ice in my whiskey and on occasion when my glass contained an ice cube, I sent it back. No big deal.

Coffee luke warm? Send it back for a new cup. No big deal.

I have seen people return glasses filled with ice and a soft drink for a glass with the soft drink but no ice. I've never seen a server object.

I don't doubt that the plaintiff has a point - but not a case - that the ice displaced some of the drink she ordered, but she seems a bit quick to find a hungry (for fame if not fortune) barrister (not barista) to file a claim against an international business.
AS FAR AS STARBUCKS is concerned, "Our customers understand and expect that ice is an essential component of any 'iced' beverage. If a customer is not satisfied with their beverage preparation, we will gladly remake it," company spokeswoman Jamie Riley said.

There is only one word for this suit: LU'DI'CROUS.